Atheists vs Christians...

kelly1

Folks,

I've seen countless debates now between Atheists and Christians and tell me if I'm wrong, but I haven't seen anyone ever change their opinion following a debate. It always seems to end in frustration or anger.

Both sides of the divide seems to be getting more and more frustrated that they can't seem to get their point across, that the other person(s) just isn't listening. We all want to win, to put our point across. But are we listening to the other side? It's good to remember that we have 1 mouth and 2 ears.

So I think it we're ever to make any progress towards understanding the other side of the debate, we need to start listening more and try to see things from their perspective. It doesn't do any good blankly stating that we're right, you're wrong. Understanding is key. Maybe then we can have constructive debates and fewer arguments/rows.

I know we Christians are out on a limb in a sense because we can't put God under the microscope. We can't prove He exists but we know in our hearts that He's there taking care of us as good fathers do.

Let's take Jesus' example and not go chasing after people when they don't accept our views. Present the truth for the hearer to take or leave and let's do it out of love and not in order to score points. We know what happens when we take the leap of faith and the joy it brings. So let's keep it joyful.

And yes, I'm a hypocrite I'm just trying to calm things down a bit!

God bless,
Noel.

Galvasean

I didn't read a word of that but I'm going to assume that you were wrong on account of being Christian.

CerebralCortex

kelly1 wrote: »

Folks,

I've seen countless debates now between Atheists and Christians and tell me if I'm wrong, but I haven't seen anyone ever change their opinion following a debate. It always seems to end in frustration or anger.

It has to for you.

kelly1 wrote: »

Both sides of the divide seems to be getting more and more frustrated that they can't seem to get their point across, that the other person(s) just isn't listening. We all want to win, to put our point across. But are we listening to the other side? It's good to remember that we have 1 mouth and 2 ears.

Is that why you stormed out of the A+A forum telling us we're all going to hell.

kelly1 wrote: »

So I think it we're ever to make any progress towards understanding the other side of the debate, we need to start listening more and try to see things from their perspective. It doesn't do any good blankly stating that we're right, you're wrong. Understanding is key. Maybe then we can have constructive debates and fewer arguments/rows.

I have tried it and now I'm an atheist. You can't debate something that is illogical. Its like giving importance to the moral implications of puss n boots carrying a blade.

kelly1 wrote: »

I know we Christians are out on a limb in a sense because we can't put God under the microscope. We can't prove He exists but we know in our hearts that He's there taking care of us as good fathers do.

Its quite possible that that is an illusion of emotion no?

kelly1 wrote: »

Let's take Jesus' example and not go chasing after people when they don't accept our views. Present the truth for the hearer to take or leave and let's do it out of love and not in order to score points. We know what happens when we take the leap of faith and the joy it brings. So let's keep it joyful.

Well you don't really know the truth thats what pisses me off as an atheist anyway.

kelly1 wrote: »

And yes, I'm a hypocrite I'm just trying to calm things down a bit!

God bless,
Noel.

You could have fooled me.

kelly1

CerebralCortex wrote: »

Is that why you stormed out of the A+A forum telling us we're all going to hell.

Please don't lie about me. What I said was "Yeah, just keep laughing guys. I don't mean this vindictively, but you will regret it one day." Whether you are saved or damned you will regret your quite open attacks on Christians, IMO.

Malari

kelly1 wrote: »

Please don't lie about me. What I said was "Yeah, just keep laughing guys. I don't mean this vindictively, but you will regret it one day." Whether you are saved or damned you will regret your quite open attacks on Christians, IMO.

Why do you say "regret"? If what you believe to be true is proved, why should any atheists regret anything? Maybe be angry, or indignant...if you are proved wrong (which is obviously a contradiction in terms in my opinion) would you regret having lived your only and short life the way you did? Worshipping something that never existed?

kelly1

Guys, I'm not getting into another argument.

CerebralCortex

Funny how you keep looking for one though :pac:

CerebralCortex

kelly1 wrote: »

Please don't lie about me. What I said was "Yeah, just keep laughing guys. I don't mean this vindictively, but you will regret it one day." Whether you are saved or damned you will regret your quite open attacks on Christians, IMO.

Isn't that indirect way of saying that for believing what I believe I'm going to hell or I'll be damned (however you want to paint it?)

Zombrex

kelly1 wrote: »

So I think it we're ever to make any progress towards understanding the other side of the debate, we need to start listening more and try to see things from their perspective.

I have an idea.

If the interest is really in understand if the other side actually understand each sides position, I think the following would be helpful -

You guys present the points you guys hold as being most convincing, the points you guys think we simply are not listening to or ignoring, and then try and critically attack them yourselves. Really go to town on them. And be prepared to accept help in taring them down even more if there is something that hasn't been considered.

Even though a person may hold a position they should still understand what other people think the flaw in that position is. They shouldn't be afraid to strip the arguments bare.

If you guys recognize the flaws in your own arguments and yet demonstrate that you have got passed them, this would go some way to demonstrating that you do consider other views that may conflict with your held positions, rather than simply blindly accepting your own position

We can do like wise.

I think both sides seem to think that it is simply lack of information on each others part as to why we hold opposite positions. We think you guys believe in God because you simply haven't thought about it hard enough, where as you guys think we reject the belief in God because we just haven't considered how God is necessary to a functioning universe, or we don't understand our own sin and how that blinds us.

I'm not sure the Christianity forum is the best place for this though.

kelly1

CerebralCortex wrote: »

Isn't that indirect way of saying that for believing what I believe I'm going to hell or I'll be damned (however you want to paint it?)

I'm in no position to judge whether you will be saved.

What I'm saying is that if you're damned, you'll regret having rejected God's grace and realize the good you've forfeited. If you are saved, it will mean you have repented and regretted your attacks on Christ's Church and Christians.

But either way, there will be regret.

Zombrex

kelly1 wrote: »

I'm in no position to judge whether you will be saved.

What I'm saying is that if you're damned, you'll regret having rejected God's grace and realize the good you've forfeited. If you are saved, it will mean you have repented and regretted your attacks on Christ's Church and Christians.

But either way, there will be regret.

Ok I can see this going on ..

Can you agree that there are people, like myself, who have decided not to worship God even if he exists. So while I may be mighty surprised to meet God in the afterlife, and terrified of his punishment for not believing in him my sin*, I certainly would not regret how I have lived my life, even if the throws me into hell. I would not change how I have lead my life, so there is nothing to regret in that regard.

If you can, then we can push on. What did you think of my proposal?

* In the spirit of the thread i have corrected that, you guys don't believe we are punished for not believing, we are punished for disobedience (sin).

CerebralCortex

kelly1 wrote: »

I'm in no position to judge whether you will be saved.

What I'm saying is that if you're damned, you'll regret having rejected God's grace and realize the good you've forfeited. If you are saved, it will mean you have repented and regretted your attacks on Christ's Church and Christians.

But either way, there will be regret.

Why I live a good life? I've been warned about taking liberties with Christians so I'll leave them alone but me living a good life means rejecting the institution that is christ's church.

iUseVi

Didn't you try something similar to this before?

Tim Robbins

A good starting poing would be to find a common language. I would see Science as the best candidate for this has it has an in built mechanism for facilitating disagreement and resolving them.

However, the problem with the greatest of respect is that none of the regular Christian posters seem to have any interest in it.

I really can't understand how any rational person who has an interest in the discovery and search for knowledge and truth can be disinterested in science.

PDN

Tim Robbins wrote: »

A good starting poing would be to find a common language. I would see Science as the best candidate for this has it has an in built mechanism for facilitating disagreement and resolving them.

However, the problem with the greatest of respect is that none of the regular Christian posters seem to have any interest in it.

I really can't understand how any rational person who has an interest in the discovery and search for knowledge and truth can be disinterested in science.

How can science be the best language for discussing philosophical and theological issues? Science is the best language for discussing scientific issues.

kelly1

Wicknight wrote: »

You guys present the points you guys hold as being most convincing, the points you guys think we simply are not listening to or ignoring, and then try and critically attack them yourselves. Really go to town on them. And be prepared to accept help in taring them down even more if there is something that hasn't been considered.

That doesn't really sound like an attempt to understand the Christian position. You really only want to demolish the Christian position.

I've often tried to come up with a convincing argument for God's existence but I've realized that it's not possible to prove that He exists. It's a half-full, half-empty glass situation. I see lots of evidence for God's existence but atheists go out of their way to find natural explanations for everything. Miracles being a good example. "It's just a random event, a freak of nature, the test results got mixed up, the patient never had cancer, it was just a rash etc".

Wicknight wrote: »

Even though a person may hold a position they should still understand what other people think the flaw in that position is. They shouldn't be afraid to strip the arguments bare.

I've heard heaps of arguments against belief in God and I really don't think any of them prove anything, not even strong evidence. I'm a rational guy, I'm skeptical. I don't have my head stuck in the sand. I accept the possibility or even probability that physical life evolved from non-life. That doesn't come close to destroying my faith in God.

Wicknight wrote: »

If you guys recognize the flaws in your own arguments and yet demonstrate that you have got passed them, this would go some way to demonstrating that you do consider other views that may conflict with your held positions, rather than simply blindly accepting your own position

I do try to understand the atheist position but I can't help seeing it as a kind of blindness.

Wicknight wrote: »

I think both sides seem to think that it is simply lack of information on each others part as to why we hold opposite positions. We think you guys believe in God because you simply haven't thought about it hard enough, where as you guys think we reject the belief in God because we just haven't considered how God is necessary to a functioning universe, or we don't understand our own sin and how that blinds us.

Ignorance, misinformation and stubborness, on both sides, has a lot to do with it. Re atheism, the way I see it, the atheist really isn't prepared to take the leap of faith "to cast out into the deep" without supporting evidence. I know in my heart/soul that God is there to be found if we sincerely and honestly seek Him. God is there behind the fog, we just need to jump into the fog. As they say, you won't know, till you go.

kelly1

Wicknight wrote: »

Can you agree that there are people, like myself, who have decided not to worship God even if he exists. So while I may be mighty surprised to meet God in the afterlife, and terrified of his punishment for not believing in him my sin*, I certainly would not regret how I have lived my life, even if the throws me into hell. I would not change how I have lead my life, so there is nothing to regret in that regard.

Eh no. I believe that if you die having rejected God, the ultimate Good and your intended eternal destiny, you will seriously regret your decisions, because it will become abundantly clear to you the good you could have had and what you will be faced with. I believe that everyone who ends up in Hell does so of their own choosing and that while we may not be receptive to God's grace in this life, we will discover when we die that God had called us countless times and that we rejected His grace.

Wicknight wrote: »

If you can, then we can push on. What did you think of my proposal?

Maybe there is no pushing on. Maybe we just have to agree to disagree?

kelly1

Tim Robbins wrote: »

A good starting poing would be to find a common language. I would see Science as the best candidate for this has it has an in built mechanism for facilitating disagreement and resolving them.

I think we've all tried that approach countless times. God can't be measured with any natural instruments. And logic can't prove that God doesn't exist.

The only bridge between the natural and the supernatural worlds is faith.

Tim Robbins wrote: »

I really can't understand how any rational person who has an interest in the discovery and search for knowledge and truth can be disinterested in science.

I'm interested in science and it's good as long as it doesn't try to replace God (which it can't do anyway).

cronndiesel

atheists vrs christians why only christians

do atheists define themselves as being unbeliveing just christ??

why dont they have a go at convincing buddests hindus shieks and muslems what about animasts and rastafarians or freemasons who believe in a ''supreme being'' the kkk or wotananism/wotanic arianism
go and chat them and give us a break for a while shir why should we be so lucky to get all your attention

Every ''great'' civilisation ancient and ''modern'' had some religion. The greeks who had all those mathamatitions and philosiphors and the like worshiped appolo
i dunno

can all those cultures and civilisations be wrong

and one last thing the owness is on atheists to prove there is no God as their theory is the newest

kelly1

iUseVi wrote: »

Didn't you try something similar to this before?

Yes, I got shot down in flames!

Zombrex

kelly1 wrote: »

That doesn't really sound like an attempt to understand the Christian position.

That isn't the point.

The point would be to demonstrate to the other side that you do understand their objections, you have considered them, and you do recognize the flaws in your own beliefs.

kelly1 wrote: »

You really only want to demolish the Christian position.

And the atheist one too.

Demolishing one's own position is healthy from time to time.

Note I'm not suggesting the other side demolish the position, I'm suggesting that each side demolish their own position from the frame of mind of a the opposite side.

The other side can give help, say you have forgotten this or that, but they shouldn't get that involved in the actual demolishing and I would expect you not to defend your position, but to run with this help.

The purpose of each thread should not be to defend the position, but to demolish it. And the demolishing should be done by the side that traditionally supports the position.

kelly1 wrote: »

I've often tried to come up with a convincing argument for God's existence but I've realized that it's not possible to prove that He exists. It's a half-full, half-empty glass situation.

that is exactly what I mean. Turn that into a thread. Explore that. Really go to town with it.

kelly1 wrote: »

I see lots of evidence for God's existence but atheists go out of their way to find natural explanations for everything. Miracles being a good example. "It's just a random event, a freak of nature, the test results got mixed up, the patient never had cancer, it was just a rash etc".

And that is what I want you to do. Again, run with it. Find naturalistic explanations for everything you believe is supernatural, and put it in this super-thread. Explore what that means.

And the atheists should be doing the same in their companion thread. We can't explain everything, we don't have answers for how the Big bang happened for example.

kelly1 wrote: »

I've heard heaps of arguments against belief in God and I really don't think any of them prove anything, not even strong evidence.

Doesn't matter. Get the argument to as close as you can think would demonstrate to someone that God doesn't exist.

In fact that is a good way of thinking about it. Your mission, should you choose to accept it, is to construct a thread with the purpose of convincing someone God doesn't exist.

And the atheists have to convince someone he does.

kelly1 wrote: »

I do try to understand the atheist position but I can't help seeing it as a kind of blindness.

As do atheists when they look at Christianity.

This excersise may help. The key to debate is to full understanding the opposite sides position as well as your own.

kelly1

cronndiesel wrote: »

atheists vrs christians why only christians

do atheists define themselves as being unbeliveing just christ??

Because this is the Christian forum and there is quite a bit of volleying between A+A and Christianity. I don't know about the other faith forums.

cronndiesel wrote: »

why dont they have a go at convincing buddests hindus shieks and muslems what about animasts and rastafarians or freemasons who believe in a ''supreme being'' the kkk or wotananism/wotanic arianism
go and chat them and give us a break for a while shir why should we be so lucky to get all your attention

Dunno. Maybe because A+A and Christianity are the busiest R+S fora.

cronndiesel wrote: »

Every ''great'' civilisation ancient and ''modern'' had some religion. The greeks who had all those mathamatitions and philosiphors and the like worshiped appolo
i dunno

can all those cultures and civilisations be wrong

Yes, they fell didn't they? Christianity is still alive and well today.

cronndiesel wrote: »

and one last thing the owness is on atheists to prove there is no God as their theory is the newest

If only it were that easy. Atheists claim that we're living in an age of enlightenment now and that they've thrown off the "shackles" of religion.

Zombrex

kelly1 wrote: »

The only bridge between the natural and the supernatural worlds is faith.

I think this highlights TR point. "Faith" is a rather undefined concept. PDN says that faith is a rational belief formed on supporting evidence. I wonder if you are using "faith" in the same context here.

Basically I have no idea what you actually mean when you say that sentence, and I doubt it would certainly mean the same thing coming from another Christian.

Without a common language it is difficult to discuss things from the same understanding.

kelly1

Wicknight, why do I feel that you're assuming the role of the professor and I'm supposed to be the student learning from you? Anyway have to go home now, will take this up later.

I hope I won't regret starting this thread!

Fanny Cradock

There's a storm a comin'

iUseVi

Wicknight wrote: »

In fact that is a good way of thinking about it. Your mission, should you choose to accept it, is to construct a thread with the purpose of convincing someone God doesn't exist.

And the atheists have to convince someone he does.


As do atheists when they look at Christianity.

This excersise may help. The key to debate is to full understanding the opposite sides position as well as your own.

This does sound really fun, I have to say. Not easy either, it's not easy trying to formulate arguments that go against your position. Although that is exactly why I turned from Christianity, I did this before.

Zombrex

As promised

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=56202200

robindch

PDN wrote: »

How can science be the best language for discussing philosophical and theological issues?

Because in science, when the evidence shows that we're likely to be wrong, we change our opinion.

This works quite well when we're trying to find an accurate worldview. Doesn't work so well in philosophy or theology where the worldview comes first, and the evidence a distant second.

kelly1

Wicknight wrote: »

As promised

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=56202200

Hmm, naturally I would like to see atheists question their own beliefs and open their minds (or rather hearts) up to the possibility that God exists. I have reservations about attacking my faith for fear of offending God, even though I wouldn't mean what I wrote.

That aside, I could attack theism but I know there's no possible proof of God's existence. God wants us to believe and has designed the universe so that we are required to have faith. I think one possible explanation for this is that this is the means by which God tests us, to sift the wheat from the chaff so to speak.

I haven't yet come across an argument that comes near to refuting God. That's not to say that I haven't had moments of doubt. But I really can't bring myself to argue against God. I could do like you guys and argue God can't exist because there are millions of starving people in the world etc, but that would be playing right into the hands of the devil.

Sorry if you feel I'm not being very sporting.

I had a great laugh though when Fanny Cradock, on the thread you started in the atheism forum, said "Put yer back into it lads"

PDN

kelly1 wrote: »

Hmm, naturally I would like to see atheists question their own beliefs and open their minds (or rather hearts) up to the possibility that God exists. I have reservations about attacking my faith for fear of offending God, even though I wouldn't mean what I wrote.

That aside, I could attack theism but I know there's no possible proof of God's existence. God wants us to believe and has designed the universe so that we are required to have faith. I think one possible explanation for this is that this is the means by which God tests us, to sift the wheat from the chaff so to speak.

I haven't yet come across an argument that comes near to refuting God. That's not to say that I haven't had moments of doubt. But I really can't bring myself to argue against God. I could do like you guys and argue God can't exist because there are millions of starving people in the world etc, but that would be playing right into the hands of the devil.

Sorry if you feel I'm not being very sporting.

I had a great laugh though when Fanny Cradock, on the thread you started in the atheism forum, said "Put yer back into it lads"

It doesn't look like Wicknight's idea is going very well. Leopards changing their spots and all that. Already they're presenting attacks on Christianity as if they were strengths. Listen to this little gem from stereoroid: "This may be another failing of atheism: an inability to follow orders, or accept that something is true just because it was written in a book long ago, and "authorities" vouch for it"

Trolling in their own forum! ROTFL :pac:

kelly1

robindch wrote: »

Because in science, when the evidence shows that we're likely to be wrong, we change our opinion.

This works quite well when we're trying to find an accurate worldview. Doesn't work so well in philosophy or theology where the worldview comes first, and the evidence a distant second.

Intuitively speaking I think science is coming very close to the limits of what it can know. From my distant vantage point, it appears that theories are getting ever more complex and high energy physics is having to work at ever higher energies to find new particles. You have to ask the question, will we every find the ultimate particle and why such a particle, if it did exist, would not be divisible as the atom was once thought to be. We don't seem to be getting near a "definite line of enquiry". I see they've also come up with a new cyclical universe theory which postulates that time had no beginning, and thus no creation. It involves the idea that each cycle is slowing down and thus can go on ad infinitum. But apparently it relies on the existence of a hypothetical particle (I think).

Christians believe that it is God's will that keeps everything in existence. So if God hypothetically disappeared, so would the world.