Atheism is not just about pointing out the fallacies of religion...

[ChristIsTheWay]

I don’t know which “Atheist Arguments” you refer to, but as far as I’m concerned I don’t have to justify why I find Christian apologetics as intellectually weak (if not deliberately dishonest or inflammatory), unconvincing, and uncompelling. The ball in in the Christian’s court to make their case.

John is right. Whenever someone makes a positive claim, the burden of proof falls on them. If you say that God does not exist, you’re as obligated to prove that claim as I would be if I said that God does exist.

 

[whatever]

so. whatcha got?

What do I have? Let’s start and end by making the implied qualifiers explicit.

I don’t claim that Christianity is false, just that I consider it self-evidently man-made and ludicrous.

My assessment of Christian apologetics is based on the non-exhaustive sample I’m personally aware of.

estesbob:

Because they are not trying to convince us there is no god-they are trying to convince themselves.

That’s another conversation-ending play.

ChristIsTheWay:

If you say that God does not exist, you’re as obligated to prove that claim as I would be if I said that God does exist.

I do not say that, nor do most atheists (to the best of my knowledge as a member of that group).

 

[estesbob]

I don’t claim that Christianity is false, just that I consider it self-evidently man-made and ludicrous.

).

What is ludicrous is a belief that the complexity and the beauty of the universe is the result of a massive pre-mordial fart some 4 billion years ago. Of course then we have to get into the question of where the matter came from to consitute this action and what caused the fart to occur. Having occured the whole universe then falls into place by chance. It takes more faith to believe in that than it doea to bleive that JesusChrist rose from the dead.

As far as my assertion you are here to convince yourself more than to convince us-you wont find me posting in atheist forums-I have no doubts about what i beleive… Do you? If not why are you here?

 

[trentonzero]

John is right. Whenever someone makes a positive claim, the burden of proof falls on them. If you say that God does not exist, you’re as obligated to prove that claim as I would be if I said that God does exist.

…

Why do these debates always make me feel embaressed?

“God does NOT exist” is a negative claim, not a positive claim.

A positive claim says something is true, a negative claim says something is not true.

…

Why does it have to be “You believe foolish things” , “No, you believe foolish things.” , “No, you believe foolish things.” , “No, you believe foolish things.”

I teach kindergarten. That’s how my kindergarten students talk when they disagree with something. Is this conversation capable of going past the 5 year old level?

I keep expecting someone to say something like “God is foolish times infinity” and the Catholic to shoot back “Big Bang is foolish time infinity plus one.”

Ditto for the “You are just here to pat each other on the back” and “You are just here out of your own insecurity” argument.

(I’m talking to the one or two atheists and to the other Christians.)

 

[Mirdath]

…

Why do these debates always make me feel embaressed?

“God does NOT exist” is a negative claim, not a positive claim.

A positive claim says something is true, a negative claim says something is not true.

Point of fact, ‘God does not exist’ is just as much a positive claim as ‘God exists’. It is seeking to prove something, and postulates some assumably provable fact.

‘God’s existence is unknowable’ is a negative claim. It shifts the burden of proof onto those who would postulate a deity’s existence or nonexistence.

 

[Harsalter]

I was an for a decade atheist before I became a Catholic, and I use to hang out at the forum for websites like that.

Arguing with them is a waste of time. The vast majority of them are there for emotional reasons. They hate God. And if you talk to them long enough, and shoot down enough of their objections, eventually, almost all of them will get to how they think God is evil.

Yup! That was me for over a decade.

 

[whatever]

Arguing with them is a waste of time.

I feel the same way about theists.

The vast majority of them are there for emotional reasons.

Theists – check.

They hate God.

You can’t hate what you don’t believe in… Most atheists won’t be shy about expressing their disdain for the image of their deity that Christians created, though.

And if you talk to them long enough, and shoot down enough of their objections, eventually, almost all of them will get to how they think God is evil.

So what objections have you allegedly shot down?

I spent the first few months of my conversion chasing them in circles about it on a forum.

Care to post a link? I can’t envision you chasing any of the atheists I know, let alone in circles.

 

[GregoryPalamas]

Point of fact, ‘God does not exist’ is just as much a positive claim as ‘God exists’. It is seeking to prove something, and postulates some assumably provable fact.

‘God’s existence is unknowable’ is a negative claim. It shifts the burden of proof onto those who would postulate a deity’s existence or nonexistence.

With this I agree.

CDL

 

[GregoryPalamas]

Intellectually the Atheist is in a much less tenable position than is the Theist. An Atheist is reduced to ignoring some rather obvious evidence. There are plenty of foolish Theists around, to be sure, but at least they know that they did not cause themselves to come into existence.

The first written assignment that all of my Comparative Religion students must grapple with is this: “In three pages describe your worldview/religion.” They must use Ninian Smart’s Six Dimensions as their outline. The first of the dimensions is the Experiential “Anything that confirms or causes a change in your view of the world.” I ask all of the students to point to the factor or factors that caused them to be confirmed in their worldview. If the Atheists asks for clarification insisting that he just doesn’t care about such issues I ask him “when ws it and what circumstances brought you to the point that you have no curiosity about these matters.”

Socrates was right about at least one thing. “The unexamined life is not worth living.”

CDL

 

[whatever]

An Atheist is reduced to ignoring some rather obvious evidence.

And the theist is reduced to make the “evidence” fit the conclusion. Remember that he who makes the claim doesn’t get to set the bar on the other side’s evidentiary standards.

 

[estesbob]

…

Why do these debates always make me feel embaressed?

“God does NOT exist” is a negative claim, not a positive claim.

A positive claim says something is true, a negative claim says something is not true.

…

Why does it have to be “You believe foolish things” , “No, you believe foolish things.” , “No, you believe foolish things.” , “No, you believe foolish things.”

I teach kindergarten. That’s how my kindergarten students talk when they disagree with something. Is this conversation capable of going past the 5 year old level?

I keep expecting someone to say something like “God is foolish times infinity” and the Catholic to shoot back “Big Bang is foolish time infinity plus one.”

Ditto for the “You are just here to pat each other on the back” and “You are just here out of your own insecurity” argument.

(I’m talking to the one or two atheists and to the other Christians.)

Looks to me like you have spent way too much time around 5year olds. So if I dont debate the way YOU want me too I am akin to a Kindegartener?Do I have to go sit in the corner while those wiser than me discuss “adult” things. Or am I to be given a time out?

 

[Harsalter]

When atheists meet their maker and are judged, the least of their worries will be being compared to kindergartners while alive.

If Jesus didn’t die and rise from the dead, why did the apostles believe in it so much that they were willing to be killed for their beliefs? Their faith and believing is enough for me.

Oh, atheists don’t believe in the apostles either? Well, how far back does atheist’s disbeliefs go back? All the way back to Jesus, or even back to where they don’t believe that God created the heavens and the earth? Or does it start as recently as the last Pope.Once a Pope dies, he didn’t exist either? Or is it just Peter and back? Or maybe Pope Gregory and before? Did King David exist? Abraham?

Man, glad I’m no longer an atheist. There is too much to disprove or ignore to hold such beliefs as I once did.

 

[Mirdath]

When atheists meet their maker and are judged, the least of their worries will be being compared to kindergartners while alive.

If Jesus didn’t die and rise from the dead, why did the apostles believe in it so much that they were willing to be killed for their beliefs? Their faith and believing is enough for me.

Oh, atheists don’t believe in the apostles either? Well, how far back does atheist’s disbeliefs go back? All the way back to Jesus, or even back to where they don’t believe that God created the heavens and the earth? Or does it start as recently as the last Pope.Once a Pope dies, he didn’t exist either? Or is it just Peter and back? Or maybe Pope Gregory and before? Did King David exist? Abraham?

Man, glad I’m no longer an atheist. There is too much to disprove or ignore to hold such beliefs as I once did.

People have certainly died for sillier beliefs. The Heaven’s Gate cult was willing to commit mass suicide to get on a flying saucer traveling behind a comet in the late 90s. Their deaths do not validate their beliefs, do they?

 

[Harsalter]

People have certainly died for sillier beliefs. The Heaven’s Gate cult was willing to commit mass suicide to get on a flying saucer traveling behind a comet in the late 90s. Their deaths do not validate their beliefs, do they?

When someone dies for their beliefs, it certainly adds credence to them. But to compare mindless, brain washed cult members to organized religion based on people that history shows existed is apples and oranges.

I also have yet to find even one atheist willing to die for their beliefs (or non-religious beliefs).

And for an atheist to waste their time on a relgious forum proves to me the existence of Satan.

 

[ElizabethPH]

And for an atheist to waste their time on a relgious forum proves to me the existence of Satan.

Amen:thumbsup:

 

[estesbob]

People have certainly died for sillier beliefs. The Heaven’s Gate cult was willing to commit mass suicide to get on a flying saucer traveling behind a comet in the late 90s. Their deaths do not validate their beliefs, do they?

No comaprison Catholics have been willing to die for their beliefs for over 2,000 years. In atheism it appears the rule is others have to die for their non-belief.

 

[Mirdath]

When someone dies for their beliefs, it certainly adds credence to them. But to compare mindless, brain washed cult members to organized religion based on people that history shows existed is apples and oranges.

Apples and pears, let’s say. So how about we get into all the other martyrs for other religious, political, and social beliefs? Or how about not?

I also have yet to find even one atheist willing to die for their beliefs (or non-religious beliefs).

I’ll do you and estesbob one better: I’d die for your beliefs, including the one where my pastimes prove the existence of ultimate evil. I’m being completely serious. If I manage to end up in a world where people aren’t free to believe whatever, I’d rather not stay in it.

 

[john_doran]

I feel the same way about theists.

Theists – check.

You can’t hate what you don’t believe in… Most atheists won’t be shy about expressing their disdain for the image of their deity that Christians created, though.

So what objections have you allegedly shot down?

Care to post a link? I can’t envision you chasing any of the atheists I know, let alone in circles.

…still waiting for your proof.

you do have proof, don’t you?

 

[john_doran]

…

Why do these debates always make me feel embaressed?

“God does NOT exist” is a negative claim, not a positive claim.

A positive claim says something is true, a negative claim says something is not true.

a positive claim is a claim that something is the case - that the world is such-and-such a way; so the claim “there is no god” is a positive claim - it is a statement of the form (roughly) that “the following proposition is true: ‘god does not exist’”. or, if you prefer, “it is false that god exists”.

the only claims that do not require backup are those that withhold judgment. basically, you don’t really need to prove that you don’t know if something is the case (“maybe, maybe not - i’m not sure”).

 

[Malcolm_McLean]

People have certainly died for sillier beliefs. The Heaven’s Gate cult was willing to commit mass suicide to get on a flying saucer traveling behind a comet in the late 90s. Their deaths do not validate their beliefs, do they?

It tells us that certain possibilities, such as that the cult was just a joke or little game, are out of court. It certainly suggests that the members genuinely believed in the flying saucer. However as far as I know they didn’t base their belief on a claimed direct observation, but rather on deduction from various theological principles they held.