Ideas - "religion has run its course"
#11
(05-06-2010, 08:54 PM)loggats Wrote:
(05-06-2010, 08:35 PM)Gerard Wrote: Look at the etymology of the word, "Culture" from "cultus" which means "what one believes."

Thanks for this

Uh, no, that is not the etymology of these words.  They both come from "colere," which means to foster, tend to, take care of.  You tend to your crops by means of farming (hence agriculture, "fostering of the field") and you tend to the gods by sacrificing to them. 
Reply
#12
You're on the negative team. Easy. Dispute their definitions of  "religion" and "course". Re-define religion as something beyond time and place. Then just talk a lot of bunk and make a few jokes and you'll win.
Reply
#13
(05-06-2010, 08:52 PM)loggats Wrote:
(05-06-2010, 08:38 PM)James02 Wrote: I don't like the utilitarian argument for religion.  Who gives a crap if religion preserves Latin.

The actual argument is this:  "God exists.  If you don't give Him His due, He will nuke your @$$.  Religion will run its course when you atheists are dead and burning in hell.  Then it can't do you any good."

What does "religion has run its course" mean anyway?  Seems like modernist rot.  Sounds nice, signifies nothing.  Look up dadaism.

Sometime it makes sense to negotiate about the negotiation, or debate about the debate.  If God exists, then this statement is stupid.

Maybe go on the attack.  Tell them they are reduced to this drivel because of fear, because down deep they know the answer is either annihilation or hell.  They don't want to consider that.

thanks for answering, but this type of approach isnt really useful in the context of the debate - it's definitely utilitarian first and foremost. Like I said, I didn't come up with our strategy. And the proposal was set by our chairperson.

In 2001 all the economic experts were calling gold "a barbarous relic".  Gordon "savior of the world" Brown sold half of Britain's reserves at an all time low and announced he was going to do in months in advance so that the Hedge Funds could get their shorts into place.  I bought several hundred Krugs because basic common sense told me that gold is pretty, rare and has been desired thoughout history.  It appeared to me easy to hide, easy to flee the country with and easy to sell.

The "experts" when it comes to certain forces are basically just a vain bunch of self-promoting turds.

James02 is right.  If God exists, then the best argument is to tell them that they are infinitely less powerful than shit on His shoe.  Their debate does not amount to anything.  They might as well sit around and whistle Dixie for all the good their debate is going to do.  The debate is a pointless as an after production party at the Jerry Springer show and their intellectual though on the matter about as valuable and less entertaining.  At least watching two red-neck trailer trash midgets fight gives one a chuckle.

If you feel you must engage then ask them to show you a single athiest country that has succeeded in most of the population being able to have life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness or anything close.  Societies who shun religion always end up being run by a person who thinks they are God and behaves far worse.  If God didn't exist it would make sense for the majority of people to invent one just to have a defence against despotic psychopaths who have the will and the means to enslave them.  Look at North Korea where 6 million starving people are scared of a spoilt little fat Asian midget.  I'd just shoot the little turd in the face if I was there because "God" makes me not worry about human consequences.  That would have benefits to the rest of you.  You could thank my God for that.

You cannot control religious nutters.  Suicide bombers are excellent examples of this.  Why doesn't a North Korean shoot Kim?

The reality is that they are only free to have a stupid debate about the topic because religion has given them that freedom in the last 1000 years.  In a Godless society 99% of them would be slaves and 99.999% would be too terrified to express free thoughts.
Reply
#14
Step by Step ...

Step1 - Make them establish what the "course" is that Religion was running
Step2 - Make them establish what the "end" of the course is.
Step3 - Make them prove that Atheism is running the same course or meeting the same end
Step4 - Make them prive that Atheism is able to meet the same end "better".
Reply
#15
(05-07-2010, 05:01 AM)ggreg Wrote:
(05-06-2010, 08:52 PM)loggats Wrote:
(05-06-2010, 08:38 PM)James02 Wrote: I don't like the utilitarian argument for religion.  Who gives a crap if religion preserves Latin.

The actual argument is this:  "God exists.  If you don't give Him His due, He will nuke your @$$.  Religion will run its course when you atheists are dead and burning in hell.  Then it can't do you any good."

What does "religion has run its course" mean anyway?  Seems like modernist rot.  Sounds nice, signifies nothing.  Look up dadaism.

Sometime it makes sense to negotiate about the negotiation, or debate about the debate.  If God exists, then this statement is stupid.

Maybe go on the attack.  Tell them they are reduced to this drivel because of fear, because down deep they know the answer is either annihilation or hell.  They don't want to consider that.

thanks for answering, but this type of approach isnt really useful in the context of the debate - it's definitely utilitarian first and foremost. Like I said, I didn't come up with our strategy. And the proposal was set by our chairperson.

In 2001 all the economic experts were calling gold "a barbarous relic".  Gordon "savior of the world" Brown sold half of Britain's reserves at an all time low and announced he was going to do in months in advance so that the Hedge Funds could get their shorts into place.  I bought several hundred Krugs because basic common sense told me that gold is pretty, rare and has been desired thoughout history.  It appeared to me easy to hide, easy to flee the country with and easy to sell.

The "experts" when it comes to certain forces are basically just a vain bunch of self-promoting turds.

James02 is right.  If God exists, then the best argument is to tell them that they are infinitely less powerful than shit on His shoe.  Their debate does not amount to anything.  They might as well sit around and whistle Dixie for all the good their debate is going to do.  The debate is a pointless as an after production party at the Jerry Springer show and their intellectual though on the matter about as valuable and less entertaining.  At least watching two red-neck trailer trash midgets fight gives one a chuckle.

If you feel you must engage then ask them to show you a single athiest country that has succeeded in most of the population being able to have life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness or anything close.  Societies who shun religion always end up being run by a person who thinks they are God and behaves far worse.  If God didn't exist it would make sense for the majority of people to invent one just to have a defence against despotic psychopaths who have the will and the means to enslave them.  Look at North Korea where 6 million starving people are scared of a spoilt little fat Asian midget.  I'd just shoot the little turd in the face if I was there because "God" makes me not worry about human consequences.  That would have benefits to the rest of you.  You could thank my God for that.

You cannot control religious nutters.  Suicide bombers are excellent examples of this.  Why doesn't a North Korean shoot Kim?

The reality is that they are only free to have a stupid debate about the topic because religion has given them that freedom in the last 1000 years.  In a Godless society 99% of them would be slaves and 99.999% would be too terrified to express free thoughts.

Great post.
Reply
#16
thanks all. We (the opposition) won the debate. Only two people voted for the proposition. It was a pretty obvious choice to being with.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)