Defending Against Atheism

[cpayne]

They don’t get around it. They agree with the statement. And they would add a number of things for there is an equal lack of scientific evidence. things like:

An orbiting teapot between Jupiter and Mars
Leprechauns
Santa Claus
Tooth Fairy
A 250 member chorus singing the Battle Hymn of the Republic in a secret chamber beneath the moon’s surface.

These arguments (Bertrand Russell, perhaps? Recycled virtually verbatim through Dawkins?) don’t apply to arguments for or against the existence of a maximally perfect being such as God. A teapot, for example, possesses extension in time and space—wouldn’t be maximally perfect, therefore, since it would be contingent and causally bound. The same applies to all the other examples.

Actually, believe it or not, a lot of interesting things have been going on in philosophy of religion over the last forty or fifty years. Just because Dawkins does not take the time to learn what he criticizes doesn’t mean we should follow his example, does it?

 

[Texas_Roofer]

The topic is still on atheism (i think).

In answer to ur q - he doesn’t.

In Dawkins’ book the ‘Selfish Gene’ he posits that genes will do all it can to spread themselves and survive, and we humans are slaves to our genes.Whatever good or bad comes out of this process of evolution has nothing to do with morality (in the religious sense), so there is no such thing as a natural moral law for Dawkins. Only natural law in the sense of what takes place in nature and evolutionary development.

This sounds extremely sloppy. So does Dawkins believe humans have no thought or accountability as their genes are really in control? um wait, could that question be answered as his genes can not talk or write? So Dawkins himself a slave to his genes has no control yet he is what we should follow. sloppy very sloppy

 

[Ginger2]

Pork, See post # 170. This is the first mention of ghosts and witches that I am aware of.

It appears to me you just like to argue. Asking about my “agenda” seems an odd question since this is a Christian Website and you are the atheist here. What is your agenda? Certainly not fellowship with like-minded people.

But if you are really interested in my “agenda” I’m just here killing time. I don’t really see these forums as a productive way of witnessing. And I don’t believe anything a Christian says to an atheist will make one once of a difference.

If I wanted to change an atheists mind about God, I would start by praying - not talking.

I’ve only ever prayed for one atheist - she’s a Christian now.

I give you this gift: the last word - it seems to be what you are really after. Don’t waste it.

 

[Texas_Roofer]

[from post #170]

In the words of Jonathan Miller:
I’m reluctant to use the word ‘atheist’ to describe my own unshakable disbelief and that’s not because I’m ashamed, afraid or even embarrassed, but simply because it seems so self-evidently true to me that there is no god that giving that conviction a special title, somehow dignifies what it denies. After all, we don’t have a special word for people who don’t believe in ghosts or witches

Great irony this thread has proven Mr Millers point quiet well

God is as real as ghosts and witches…

As far as I know, the ancient Greek term atheos or however it should spelled used to refer to those believing in the wrong gods and it wasn’t until Christianity became the dominant religion that the term started to denote lack in belief in gods altogether. Makes sense, because mono-theism is as far as one-up-godship can be taken and if you believe there’s only one of them, it’s only a short leap to say that if you don’t believe in the right one, you don’t believe in any.

I don’t really care which term you theists use to denote those who deny the existence of your favorite god. Anyhow, I’m not shy about calling myself an atheist if the topic comes up in real life.

Posting at my favorite joints is slow and I got bored. Nice? You’re either sarcastic or you don’t know me.

At the risk of offending the running arguements could we discuss this?
1)Young atheists may think the inablity to prove God’s existence is significant, however that is not accurate as the fact is they operate daily without proof of hundreds (actually thousands & millions) of things. For example who has proof they will live, or the sun will rise? yet we plan for the future.

1. What is proof. The answer is not so simple. Again the young think that there are black and white conditions however this does not pass scienctific scrutiny. Proof is actually a state of acceptance, not a scientific fact. There have been many scientific cases in which years after something was believed to be proven it was proven false! The rising sun is an example. The cause of stomach ulcers another. The separation of energy and matter a third example.
2. Even the atheist works off of faith just a different alignment of faith. He has faith there will be sunshine tomorrow, and he will be alive, and he will pay no price for dening God. Thus the problem. It is his faith about the end for he does not know what will happen, when, or how it ends in fact he does no know what “it” is. Is “it” him, or the world, or mankind?

So do witches exist? No for me, but they may exist for others who accept such a belief. We can no more prove the absence of witches as the existance of God.

Now for ghosts, do they exist? Read closely- it depends of how you define ghosts. I believe souls exist before and after being human, does that quailify as your ghosts? If you call this ghosts then I accept the existence of ghosts. If you define ghosts as dead humans walking around I deny such a belief. Of course you could try to prove existance or nonexistance of ghosts to which I say you maybe wasting your time.

 

[GuanYuWarGod]

This thread is getting out of hand. Let’s remember the virtue of charity. Now, please?


I used to have “arguments” with atheists a long time ago. In fact, I encountered them much, MUCH more often than non - Catholic Christians even. Now I am in a period of dormancy from doing any such debate with atheists. For now, I wish to meditate and pray on my wisdom and do much contemplation for many more months before I decide to get “back on game”.

Few things I have realized during my time:

1. Straw arguments - Search the web for a definition of it as I can give no concrete definition for this. In any case you will get a very good grasp of it quite immediately. Why? Simply, because I accuse BOTH theists and non - theists on this thread of acting straw. Straw debates get nowhere and are totally endless and pointless because both are debating on 2 different rivers. We will always be on a different boat but try to stay on the same river now, eh?
2. Attack the argument not the being arguing it.
3. Understand the terms. ie. The atheist idea of the meaning of Creation is FAR from the theological meaning the RCC teaches.
4. Be friends.

 

[not_a_theist]

1. Straw arguments - Search the web for a definition of it as I can give no concrete definition for this. In any case you will get a very good grasp of it quite immediately. Why? Simply, because I accuse BOTH theists and non - theists on this thread of acting straw. Straw debates get nowhere and are totally endless and pointless because both are debating on 2 different rivers. We will always be on a different boat but try to stay on the same river now, eh?

You’re looking for “straw man”. An explanation of this and other fallacies can be found on infidels.org and many other secular sites.

1. Attack the argument not the being arguing it.

“If you don’t know what an ad hominem argument is, you must be an idiot.”

1. Understand the terms. ie. The atheist idea of the meaning of Creation is FAR from the theological meaning the RCC teaches.

The language barrier. In a debate with theists, you can’t take the meaning of any word for granted. Certainly not the word ‘atheism’.

1. Be friends.

Friendship is something to be earned. See 3) above.

Religious affiliation, personality traits, political orientation, and moral convictions will almost always cluster. I myself can try to behave online, but it’s improbable that I’d be real-life friends with the “defenders of the faith” found on this and other forums.

 

[Texas_Roofer]

… I myself can try to behave online, but it’s improbable that I’d be real-life friends with the “defenders of the faith” found on this and other forums.

You would be suprised. Did you notice I used 3 pronouns? A good post has zero pronouns. Minimal pronoun use is a sign of a good posting

 

[Ginger2]

Not,

It’s not improbable that you could be real-life friends with the “defenders of the faith” found on this and other forums.

Most people are very different in person. At least I hope we are not all as we appear to be online.

In forums, it would be near impossible for me to be friends with a homosexual because he will believe I hate him “just for being who he is”.

But in real life I have gay & lesbian friends. I have ex-gay and ex-lesbian friends. I have an atheist friend and an ex-atheist friend. In real life we are able to look in each other’s in the eyes. In real life, we have a lot of good times.

I am honest with them about my faith - if they ask. They are not offended because they know how I treat them in real life. Sometimes they ask questions. Sometimes I ask.

The difference is that when we ask, we are really interested in hearing the answer.

That is seldom true online - at least not in my experience.

 

[cpayne]

Religious affiliation, personality traits, political orientation, and moral convictions will almost always cluster.

Yes, I myself have also noticed that people with strong Christian beliefs also tend to be tender-hearted, open-minded, charitable, tolerant, and just generally sweet people.

 

[not_a_theist]

Not,

It’s not improbable that you could be real-life friends with the “defenders of the faith” found on this and other forums.

It is improbable. There’s that language barrier again. When I say “defenders of the faith”, my definition and connotations differ from yours. Also, what the average American calls a friend I call an acquaintance.

But in real life I have gay & lesbian friends. I have ex-gay and ex-lesbian friends. I have an atheist friend and an ex-atheist friend. In real life we are able to look in each other’s in the eyes. In real life, we have a lot of good times.

Good for you. A few of our friends are religious, but they’re all of the “you do your own thing” variety. Those we get close to have compatible views on the usual hot button topics and personal beliefs don’t enter the conversation. Those who hold incompatible views are not people we’d associate with in the first place. Yes, the game is rigged.

I am honest with them about my faith - if they ask. They are not offended because they know how I treat them in real life. Sometimes they ask questions. Sometimes I ask.

The difference is that when we ask, we are really interested in hearing the answer.

That is seldom true online - at least not in my experience.

That much I’ll grant you.

On expressly religious and atheistic sites alike, there are way too many people yapping at each other, not talking with each other. You’ll have better luck at joints where questions of religion or atheism are mere side topics.

 

[not_a_theist]

Yes, I myself have also noticed that people with strong Christian beliefs also tend to be tender-hearted, open-minded, charitable, tolerant, and just generally sweet people.

Strange. All too frequently, I find that they are politically conservative, close-minded, intolerant, uncharitable, homophobic bigots.

I know for a fact that the Christians you describe exist, but they are ostracized by their fellow Christians for their tolerance.

 

[cpayne]

Ah. Well, we must move in different circles.

 

[melensdad]

Strange. All too frequently, I find that they are politically conservative, close-minded, intolerant, uncharitable, homophobic bigots.

**I know for a fact **that the Christians you describe exist, but they are ostracized by their fellow Christians for their tolerance.

I know for fact, and from personal experience, that your observation is wrong.

Further, there have been numerous studies that show that people of faith are more charitable than those of no faith, so your point about being uncharitable is proven wrong.

As for the other allegations you make, no doubt that SOME Christians are politically conservative, but many are also very much socialistic in their political leanings so its safe to say that Christians run the gamut of the political spectrum; also running across the spectrum are their social beliefs.

 

[Ginger2]

“what the average American calls a friend I call an acquaintance.”

Yes. I have many, many acquaintances, but very, very few friends - and only one true friend in what I consider to fit the definition.

So, my term “friend” has a rather broad meaning in this case. That’s why I said I have only one atheist friend. The atheist does not fit my very narrow definition of a friend, yet by no means can he be considered only an acquaintance.

With atheists I don’t talk about God unless they bring it up. Why would I spoil a perfectly good conversation on a topic they are not interested in?

And even then, most of the time when they bring it up they don’t really want to talk about it.

It’s different with homosexuals. God is our deep bond.

 

[Ginger2]

Quote Not: “I find that (Christians) are …close-minded, intolerant, uncharitable, homophobic bigots.”

You left out judgmental.

 

[not_a_theist]

I know for fact, and from personal experience, that your observation is wrong.

It’s not worth my time to explain the semantics of the qualifier “all too often”.

 

[not_a_theist]

Quote Not: “I find that (Christians) are …close-minded, intolerant, uncharitable, homophobic bigots.”

You left out judgmental.

My apologies. I was trying to be charitable.

 

[Nepenthe]

I’ve been away for a while, and having checked up on this thread, I have a few quibbles with some of the posts here, particularly those by my fellow nontheists.

not a theist, you’ve said a few insupportable things, for instance that atheism predates theism. Oh really? How would you know? Doesn’t someone have to profess belief in something before someone else can tell them they’re wrong or profess a belief in its opposite? The way you put that makes you sound just as much a Believer as someone who says ‘God exists’. It’s just as indefensible, since you’re claiming faith, not evidence.

I should also mention the bit about ‘Even if I had direct physical evidence of God/gods/etc, I still wouldn’t believe.’ That’s neither reasonable nor rational, unless you mean it in the sense of ‘I wouldn’t ‘believe’, I would KNOW’. Same if you had direct physical evidence of invisible pink unicorns. I don’t think it’s likely that I will ever have such evidence, and I would test it to the best of my ability, but if it held, then I would have to act according to the evidence. When you make a positive assertion such as ‘God does not exist’ or ‘God does exist’ then the burden of proving such a statement is upon you, and neither one of those statements is falsifiable. the ‘strong atheist’ position is as untenable logically as the theist one. Hence I, and many of the other nontheists here are in the ‘weak-atheist/strong- agnostic’ category.

And porkscratchings, you misrepresented Dawkins rather badly, and gave the wrong impression to Texas Roofer. Also, where did you learn your manners or go to school? Please, please refrain from insisting on using tacky internet slang (just a personal loathing of mine ), and behaving petulantly? Represent, you guys! Hubriss too!

An aside: someone in this thread made some statement about 'most atheists, or at least all I’ve met are (blah blah, not very flattering words…) I must say, this is the very first thread I have seen on this board where I felt a little embarrassed by the attitudes and behavior of the Unbelieving crowd. Hopefully these youngsters haven’t made you theists think worse of MerryAtheist, Midath, or myself, or any of the other friendly Unbelievers. Now I know how some of you theists must feel when you see one of the kookier Christians talking about rounding all the atheists up into concentration camps – okay, I don’t feel anything like as embarrassed as that. A little rudeness doesn’t come anywhere close to that kind of whacky!

I know how many theists (Catholics, protestants etc) actually are all too eager to dislike us for our difference. While it could have been said with more grace and tact, it’s true that some religious people are frighteningly bigoted and hostile to members of other religions, and at least as much so towards those who don’t believe in the supernatural. But hey, many of you have gotten to know quite a few of us nontheists aound here, and hopefully you know we aren’t your enemies. We know most of you aren’t ours too!

 

[Ginger2]

Not,

I’d like to ask you a couple questions if it’s OK with you.

Let’s say one night you wake with a start from a dream, and upon waking you feel convinced it was God giving you a warning,

Being a logical atheist, you would probably write it off within seconds as nothing more than a silly nightmare brought on from blogging with Christians, right?

But what if the dream came true? What would you do then?

 

[not_a_theist]

Not,

I’d like to ask you a couple questions if it’s OK with you.

Shoot.

Let’s say one night you wake with a start from a dream, and upon waking you feel convinced it was God giving you a warning,

Being a logical atheist, you would probably write it off within seconds as nothing more than a silly nightmare brought on from blogging with Christians, right?

Right.

But what if the dream came true? What would you do then?

Write it off, chalk up one for the subconscious, and zip the banter with theists. Alternatively, commit myself to the nearest looney bin.