Return to Answer

Why do Christians debate? Are atheist born like that, shaped like that by the environment or did they choose to become like that? The same question can of course be asked about Christians.

Some aspects of the questions above can be partially answered by Romans 10:13-15:

13 for, “Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.” 14 How, then, can they call on the one they have not believed in? And how can they believe in the one of whom they have not heard? And how can they hear without someone preaching to them? 15 And how can anyone preach unless they are sent? As it is written: “How beautiful are the feet of those who bring good news!

From a biblical point of view debates between Christians and Atheists or people of other religions, are not done for the sake of the debate itself, or to win it in order to be right. That would be some sort of idolitry of the messenger. Instead, it is done as part of telling people good news, giving them the choice and opportunity to get to know more about the bible, God (Jehovah or Yahweh), Jesus, and the purpose of life for humans. Interest and participation is voluntary. As other answers mentioned, Paul did this on various occasions.

The discussions can, however, be interesting for their content and arguments, but also on a meta-level. It can be a nice exercises in discernment between motives and formalism. Some times the irony of such debates is that the atheists side can be almost as religious in their zeal to preach and spread atheism as the theists side, they can be just as dogmatic in their assumptions reasoning, and intollerance of other views as the other party. Although seemingly opposed both parties can be very similar in many ways.

How scientific is it to falsify the unfalsifiable? Often these debates seem more philosophical than scientific. And often they have a more polarizing effect, than that they increase mutual understanding and respect. As we can recognize a tree by its fruits, question what are the fruits of such debates. Do they increase love and understanding, or anger and disagreements? Are they looked at by the audience in an attempt to change their existing views or to entrench themselves deeper? And do the debaters really address the other party with the purpose of helping them to understand something, or are they mainly seeking support from members of their own side?

Furthermore, there is selection bias in the sense that this type of public debates attract particular types of atheists and theists that might not be representative of the entire respective groups. For some writing books about the evolution vs. creation debate has become their main source of income by publishing books and giving talks. It is good to realize that there can be an element of show and (personal) commercial interest in such debates.

Why do Christians debate? Are atheist born like that, shaped like that by the environment or did they choose to become like that? The same question can of course be asked about Christians.

Some aspects of the questions above can be partially answered by Romans 10:13-15:

13 for, “Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.” 14 How, then, can they call on the one they have not believed in? And how can they believe in the one of whom they have not heard? And how can they hear without someone preaching to them? 15 And how can anyone preach unless they are sent? As it is written: “How beautiful are the feet of those who bring good news!

From a biblical point of view debates between Christians and Atheists or people of other religions, are not done for the sake of the debate itself, or to win it in order to be right. That would be some sort of idolitry of the messenger. Instead, it is done as part of telling people good news, giving them the choice and opportunity to get to know more about the bible, God (Jehovah or Yahweh), Jesus, and the purpose of life for humans. Interest and participation is voluntary. As other answers mentioned, Paul did this on various occasions. Furthermore:

Proverbs 27:17 As iron sharpens iron, so one person sharpens another.

The discussions can, be interesting for their content and arguments, but also on meta-levels. It can be a nice exercises in discernment between motives and formalism. Some times the irony of such debates is that the atheists side can be almost as religious in their zeal to preach and spread atheism as the theists side, they can be just as dogmatic in their assumptions reasoning, and intollerance of other views as the other party. Although seemingly opposed both parties can be very similar in many ways.

How scientific is it to falsify the unfalsifiable? Often these debates seem more philosophical than scientific. And some times they have a more polarizing effect, than that they increase mutual understanding and respect. As we can recognize a tree by its fruits, question what are the fruits of such debates. Do they increase love and understanding, or anger and disagreements? Are they looked at by the audience in an attempt to change their existing views or to entrench themselves deeper? And do the debaters really address the other party with the purpose of helping them to understand something, or are they mainly seeking support from members of their own side?

Furthermore, there can be selection bias in the sense that this type of public debates attract particular types of atheists and theists that might not be representative of the entire respective groups. For some writing books about the evolution vs. creation debate has become a primary source of income by publishing books and giving talks. It is good to realize that there can be an element of show and (personal) commercial interest in such debates.

Why do Christians debate? Are atheist born like that, shaped like that by the environment or did they choose to become like that? The same question can of course be asked about Christians.

Some aspects of the questions above can be partially answered by Romans 10:13-15:

13 for, “Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.” 14 How, then, can they call on the one they have not believed in? And how can they believe in the one of whom they have not heard? And how can they hear without someone preaching to them? 15 And how can anyone preach unless they are sent? As it is written: “How beautiful are the feet of those who bring good news!

From a biblical point of view debates between Christians and Atheists or people of other religions, are not done for the sake of the debate itself, or to win it in order to be right. That would be some sort of idolitry of the messenger. Instead, it is done as part of telling people good news, giving them the choice and opportunity to get to know more about the bible, God (Jehovah or Yahweh), Jesus, and the purpose of life for humans. Interest and participation is voluntary. As other answers mentioned, Paul did this on various occasions.

The discussions can, however, be interesting for their content and arguments, but also on a meta-level. It can be a nice exercises in discernment between motives and formalism. Some times the irony of such debates is that the atheists side can be almost as religious in their zeal to preach and spread atheism as the theists side, they can be just as dogmatic in their assumptions reasoning, and intollerance of other views as the other party. Although seemingly opposed both parties can be very similar in many ways.

How scientific is it to falsify the unfalsifieable? Honestly most of these debates are more philosophical than scientific. And often they have a more polarizing effect, than that they increase mutual understanding and respect. As we can recognize a tree by its fuits, question what are the fruits of such debates? Do they increase love and understanding, or anger and disagreements? Are they looked by the audience in an attempt to change their existing views, or to entrench themselves deeper? And do the debaters really address the other party, or mainly members of their own side?

Furthermore, there is some selection bias, that this type of public debates attract particular type of atheists, and theists that might not be representative for the entire respective groups. For some writing books about the evolution vs. creation debate has become their main source of income by publishing books and giving talks. It is good to realize that there can be an element of show and commercial interest in such debates.

Why do Christians debate? Are atheist born like that, shaped like that by the environment or did they choose to become like that? The same question can of course be asked about Christians.

Some aspects of the questions above can be partially answered by Romans 10:13-15:

13 for, “Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.” 14 How, then, can they call on the one they have not believed in? And how can they believe in the one of whom they have not heard? And how can they hear without someone preaching to them? 15 And how can anyone preach unless they are sent? As it is written: “How beautiful are the feet of those who bring good news!

From a biblical point of view debates between Christians and Atheists or people of other religions, are not done for the sake of the debate itself, or to win it in order to be right. That would be some sort of idolitry of the messenger. Instead, it is done as part of telling people good news, giving them the choice and opportunity to get to know more about the bible, God (Jehovah or Yahweh), Jesus, and the purpose of life for humans. Interest and participation is voluntary. As other answers mentioned, Paul did this on various occasions.

The discussions can, however, be interesting for their content and arguments, but also on a meta-level. It can be a nice exercises in discernment between motives and formalism. Some times the irony of such debates is that the atheists side can be almost as religious in their zeal to preach and spread atheism as the theists side, they can be just as dogmatic in their assumptions reasoning, and intollerance of other views as the other party. Although seemingly opposed both parties can be very similar in many ways.

How scientific is it to falsify the unfalsifiable? Often these debates seem more philosophical than scientific. And often they have a more polarizing effect, than that they increase mutual understanding and respect. As we can recognize a tree by its fruits, question what are the fruits of such debates. Do they increase love and understanding, or anger and disagreements? Are they looked at by the audience in an attempt to change their existing views or to entrench themselves deeper? And do the debaters really address the other party with the purpose of helping them to understand something, or are they mainly seeking support from members of their own side?

Furthermore, there is selection bias in the sense that this type of public debates attract particular types of atheists and theists that might not be representative of the entire respective groups. For some writing books about the evolution vs. creation debate has become their main source of income by publishing books and giving talks. It is good to realize that there can be an element of show and (personal) commercial interest in such debates.

Are atheist born like that, shaped like that by the environment or did they choose to become like that? The same question can of course be asked about Christians.

This question, and the one asked above, can be partially answered by Romans 10:13-15:

13 for, “Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.” 14 How, then, can they call on the one they have not believed in? And how can they believe in the one of whom they have not heard? And how can they hear without someone preaching to them? 15 And how can anyone preach unless they are sent? As it is written: “How beautiful are the feet of those who bring good news!

From a biblical point of view debates between Christians and Atheists or people of other religions, are not done for the sake of the debate itself, or to win it in order to be right. That would be some sort of idolitry of the messenger. Instead, it is done as part of telling people good news, giving them the choice and opportunity to get to know more about the bible, God (Jehovah or Yahweh), Jesus, and the purpose of life for humans. Interest and participation is voluntary. As other answers mentioned, Paul did this on various occasions.

The discussions can, however, be interesting for their content and arguments, but also on a meta-level. It can be a nice exercises in discernment between motives and formalism. Some times the irony of such debates is that the atheists side can be almost as religious in their zeal to preach and spread atheism as the theists side, they can be just as dogmatic in their assumptions reasoning, and intollerance of other views as the other party. Although seemingly opposed both parties can be very similar in many ways.

How scientific is it to falsify the unfalsifieable? Honestly most of these debates are more philosophical than scientific. And often they have a more polarizing effect, than that they increase mutual understanding and respect. As we can recognize a tree by its fuits, question what are the fruits of such debates? Do they increase love and understanding, or anger and disagreements?

Furthermore, there is some selection bias, that this type of public debates attract particular type of atheists, and theists that might not be representative for the entire respective groups. For some writing books about the evolution vs. creation debate has become their main source of income by publishing books and giving talks. It is good to realize that there can be an element of show and commercial interest in such debates.

Why do Christians debate? Are atheist born like that, shaped like that by the environment or did they choose to become like that? The same question can of course be asked about Christians.

Some aspects of the questions above can be partially answered by Romans 10:13-15:

13 for, “Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.” 14 How, then, can they call on the one they have not believed in? And how can they believe in the one of whom they have not heard? And how can they hear without someone preaching to them? 15 And how can anyone preach unless they are sent? As it is written: “How beautiful are the feet of those who bring good news!

From a biblical point of view debates between Christians and Atheists or people of other religions, are not done for the sake of the debate itself, or to win it in order to be right. That would be some sort of idolitry of the messenger. Instead, it is done as part of telling people good news, giving them the choice and opportunity to get to know more about the bible, God (Jehovah or Yahweh), Jesus, and the purpose of life for humans. Interest and participation is voluntary. As other answers mentioned, Paul did this on various occasions.

The discussions can, however, be interesting for their content and arguments, but also on a meta-level. It can be a nice exercises in discernment between motives and formalism. Some times the irony of such debates is that the atheists side can be almost as religious in their zeal to preach and spread atheism as the theists side, they can be just as dogmatic in their assumptions reasoning, and intollerance of other views as the other party. Although seemingly opposed both parties can be very similar in many ways.

How scientific is it to falsify the unfalsifieable? Honestly most of these debates are more philosophical than scientific. And often they have a more polarizing effect, than that they increase mutual understanding and respect. As we can recognize a tree by its fuits, question what are the fruits of such debates? Do they increase love and understanding, or anger and disagreements? Are they looked by the audience in an attempt to change their existing views, or to entrench themselves deeper? And do the debaters really address the other party, or mainly members of their own side?

Furthermore, there is some selection bias, that this type of public debates attract particular type of atheists, and theists that might not be representative for the entire respective groups. For some writing books about the evolution vs. creation debate has become their main source of income by publishing books and giving talks. It is good to realize that there can be an element of show and commercial interest in such debates.