Most challengnig tactic from an Atheist?

Tim Robbins

In debate there are various different approaches one can use to win some over. One can use humour, rhetoric, logic, emotion all sorts of approaches. In the art of persuasion it's exactly the same. How people make up their mind or change them is fascinating.

My question for the Christians here, in your opinion what type of atheist or atheist tactic do you find the most challenging to your beliefs?

Poll is for Christians only please.

Burial

I didn't vote in the poll and I'm hardly the perfect Catholic, but its the friend who is atheist who asks questions you can't answer. I doubt my religion until I find the answer.

Tim Robbins

Burial wrote: »

I didn't vote in the poll and I'm hardly the perfect Catholic, but its the friend who is atheist who asks questions you can't answer. I doubt my religion until I find the answer.

Elaborate, give us an example of incident recently?

Galvasean

Sorry, just had to vote. You can probably guess what I voted for. :P

Goduznt Xzst

great thread this... I will be paying close attention to see which tactic I shall use next.

On a personal note, I find leading with "After the flood, how did the Kangaroos get to Australia?" tends to get a raised eyebrow and leads to many more questions. The story of the flood is a gift from God as it's very easy to get a Christian confused over some of the finer points of how it actually happened merely 5000 years ago and the lack of obvious evidence to support it, let alone the ridiculous logistics of the Arc itself.

Soul Winner

When I hear/read a good case for atheism then I will probably be challenged, but in terms of atheists challenging me on my beliefs, most I have engaged with have never shown a respectable level of knowledge or understanding of my beliefs to be able to launch any kind of challenging argument. They poo poo everything too much and too quickly without actually knowing what they are talking about.

BrianCalgary

Generally speaking an atheist who knows scripture. They generally take it out of context and then refuse to accept when it is put into context.

This person I will usually stop discussions with because they have no real desire to learn.

Tim Robbins

BrianCalgary wrote: »

Generally speaking an atheist who knows scripture. They generally take it out of context and then refuse to accept when it is put into context.

Ah... but surely you refuse to accept Hindu and Muslim scripture when it is put in context

AtomicHorror

BrianCalgary wrote: »

Generally speaking an atheist who knows scripture. They generally take it out of context and then refuse to accept when it is put into context.

This person I will usually stop discussions with because they have no real desire to learn.

But how many religions and sects of religions must an atheist learn about in detail for you to consider him well informed enough to be justified as faithless? Indeed, how many religions should you know the scripture of in detail in order to be sure that you are justified in your choice?

Is it fair for you to dismiss the views of an atheist who came from a muslim background because he is unfamiliar with the new testament?

robindch

Soul Winner wrote: »

They poo poo everything too much and too quickly without actually knowing what they are talking about.

Does that apply to all non-religious people? Or are there any non-religious whom you reckon do understand religion?

I'm asking because many of today's non-religious were yesterday's religious -- and some of those post here. It doesn't seem enormously fair to dismiss what is, in some cases, years of religious study and experience.

JimiTime

Yeah, pretty much what SW and BC said. I have learned much from my conversations with atheists, as well as other religious people etc. It depends what you mean by challenged though. There are challenging topics raised all the time by both atheists and Christians alike in my daily life. I am a babe when it comes to knowledge, so its easy to challenge me with a well made point. If by challenged you mean, to cause me to doubt Gods existance, I don't think that has occured as a byproduct of a point raised by anyone.

BrianCalgary

AtomicHorror wrote: »

But how many religions and sects of religions must an atheist learn about in detail for you to consider him well informed enough to be justified as faithless? Indeed, how many religions should you know the scripture of in detail in order to be sure that you are justified in your choice?

Is it fair for you to dismiss the views of an atheist who came from a muslim background because he is unfamiliar with the new testament?

Dont quite get the question.

Maybe I'll clarify. I enjoy talking about scripture, it is the only way to learn more about who God is and our role in His creation.

When a non-Christian tries to use scripture to prove their point and then refuses to acknowledge scripture when it disproves their point, then that person is not honestly looking for answers, they are looking for a fight.

JimiTime

robindch wrote: »

Does that apply to all non-religious people? Or are there any non-religious whom you reckon do understand religion?

I'm asking because many of today's non-religious were yesterday's religious -- and some of those post here. It doesn't seem enormously fair to dismiss what is, in some cases, years of religious study and experience.

You make a good point. However, there is a world of difference between religious and faithful. The Pharisee's were very learned men. David Koresh could recite the bible from memory. In the world of Faith, I'm afraid there's alot more to it than academics.

Goduznt Xzst

I will say this, to massacre a bible analogy, that an Atheist can only throw his seeds out there, whether it lands on fine soil is pure chance.

For most people I have had discussions with, it usually always comes down to some mental brick wall that the person has against accepting that God doesn't exist and that the Bible is wrong. It almost feels like trying to convince a person that they never had any parents. It's at that point that I usually stop because it has reached an emotional level that only the person can work through themselves.

I find a good starting question is this "Can you accept that there is a possibility, no matter how small, that you are wrong?" If they answer no, then I won't even bother. Pride in ones opinion tends to be the biggest road block to getting a person to see a point from your perspective.

It is easier to convince someone of something ridiculous that agrees with their beliefs then it is to convince them of something logical that disagrees with them.

JimiTime

Goduznt Xzst wrote: »

Pride in ones opinion tends to be the biggest road block to getting a person to see a point from your perspective.

Irony anyone?

Burial

Tim Robbins wrote: »

Elaborate, give us an example of incident recently?

Well, my two friends were agrueing about this. (One deeply Christian the other the total opposite) Anyway, they were all talking about stuff, and I was there. I didn't know enough about my own religion or others. I was asked why i chose this religion and I honestly had no idea. Why would I be in a religion, I inheritied into? So I'm waiting for something, I don't know what, to show me which ones are wrong/right. Til then, I'm following the basic principles of every religion. though somedays I swing into Christian and then back into Atheist territory...

CerebralCortex

JimiTime wrote: »

In the world of Faith, I'm afraid there's alot more to it than academics.

Really? Don't you have to believe that to protect the "mystery" of your faith?

JimiTime

CerebralCortex wrote: »

Really? Don't you have to believe that to protect the "mystery" of your faith?

I'm not following you?

CerebralCortex

JimiTime wrote: »

I'm not following you?

I guess I don't understand what you mean when you said that

In the world of Faith, I'm afraid there's alot more to it than academics.

Fanny Cradock

Goduznt Xzst wrote: »

great thread this... I will be paying close attention to see which tactic I shall use next.

On a personal note, I find leading with "After the flood, how did the Kangaroos get to Australia?" tends to get a raised eyebrow and leads to many more questions. The story of the flood is a gift from God as it's very easy to get a Christian confused over some of the finer points of how it actually happened merely 5000 years ago and the lack of obvious evidence to support it, let alone the ridiculous logistics of the Arc itself.

Of course, you realise that such an argument would only be applicable to creationists

Goduznt Xzst

JimiTime wrote: »

Irony anyone?

There is no Irony here. Unlike most religious people I enjoy debate that challenges my understanding of the world and don't find any material to be forbidden or a "danger to my faith". I am open to the chance that I am wrong, heck I'd love to be proved wrong, who wouldn't want to live forever.

I only have an issue with "faith". I am unwilling to be told to not question something or accept something unproven, all on the promise of some reward I will receive posthumously

Regardless, I have already spent ~27 years of my life as a devout Christian and have read the Bible from cover to cover numerous times. It has taken me ~8 years to leave my faith so I am all to aware of the mental block an indoctrination in a Religion builds in a person. It was not something I felt easy to let go of for a very long time, partly due to pride and partly due to the fear of losing the chance to celebrate my 1 billionth birthday. It was only when I could accept that I, my parents and my friends where all wrong that I finally began to let go.

CDfm

Its gotta be the good looking atheist cos all the others are fanatical atheists and why would I talk to them.

Is that rational and scientific enough?

Pity you didnt ask rank your favorite Oxymoron in there too - could be fun .

AtomicHorror

BrianCalgary wrote: »

Dont quite get the question.

Maybe I'll clarify. I enjoy talking about scripture, it is the only way to learn more about who God is and our role in His creation.

When a non-Christian tries to use scripture to prove their point and then refuses to acknowledge scripture when it disproves their point, then that person is not honestly looking for answers, they are looking for a fight.

Then the question is whether an atheist needs to know scripture to challenge you.

wolfsbane

Fanny Cradock said:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Goduznt Xzst
great thread this... I will be paying close attention to see which tactic I shall use next.
On a personal note, I find leading with "After the flood, how did the Kangaroos get to Australia?" tends to get a raised eyebrow and leads to many more questions. The story of the flood is a gift from God as it's very easy to get a Christian confused over some of the finer points of how it actually happened merely 5000 years ago and the lack of obvious evidence to support it, let alone the ridiculous logistics of the Arc itself.
Of course, you realise that such an argument would only be applicable to creationists

And we are more than happy to answer the objections.

Ideally we could go straight to the gospel call to repentance and faith, but if that means dealing with Creation and the Flood first, then by all means.

wolfsbane

Goduznt Xzst wrote: »

There is no Irony here. Unlike most religious people I enjoy debate that challenges my understanding of the world and don't find any material to be forbidden or a "danger to my faith". I am open to the chance that I am wrong, heck I'd love to be proved wrong, who wouldn't want to live forever.

I only have an issue with "faith". I am unwilling to be told to not question something or accept something unproven, all on the promise of some reward I will receive posthumously

Regardless, I have already spent ~27 years of my life as a devout Christian and have read the Bible from cover to cover numerous times. It has taken me ~8 years to leave my faith so I am all to aware of the mental block an indoctrination in a Religion builds in a person. It was not something I felt easy to let go of for a very long time, partly due to pride and partly due to the fear of losing the chance to celebrate my 1 billionth birthday. It was only when I could accept that I, my parents and my friends where all wrong that I finally began to let go.

I'm puzzled by your description of yourself as having been a devout Christian , while you imply that the existence of God, the atoning death and resurrection of Christ, etc. were things that remained unproven to you.

You say you accepted them without knowing them to be true, on the speculation that this would get you to heaven. That is not the description of a devout Christian, if we define Christian as in the Bible.

Perhaps you would elaborate?

Húrin

AtomicHorror wrote: »

But how many religions and sects of religions must an atheist learn about in detail for you to consider him well informed enough to be justified as faithless? Indeed, how many religions should you know the scripture of in detail in order to be sure that you are justified in your choice?

he doesn't need such knowledge to justify his own faithlessness, but he had better know it if he is trying to preach atheism to Christians.

CerebralCortex

wolfsbane wrote: »

I'm puzzled by your description of yourself as having been a devout Christian

Actually his description of being devoutly christian pretty much matches up to most "devout christians" I've met, including members of my family.

Goduznt Xzst

wolfsbane wrote: »

I'm puzzled by your description of yourself as having been a devout Christian , while you imply that the existence of God, the atoning death and resurrection of Christ, etc. were things that remained unproven to you.

You say you accepted them without knowing them to be true, on the speculation that this would get you to heaven. That is not the description of a devout Christian, if we define Christian as in the Bible.

Perhaps you would elaborate?

CerebralCortex wrote: »

Actually his description of being devoutly christian pretty much matches up to most "devout christians" I've met, including members of my family.

Thanks CerebralCortex, I was going to say the same thing. Whilst a Christian, I had unwavering faith that what I believed was the only truth. That God definitely existed and that following the words of Jesus would lead to everlasting life. In my mind I "knew" it to be true. I will admit that I was completely block headed in my belief and would describe myself as "devout".

But with time I began to see flaws in my belief, I think personal tragedies are a great catalyst to start someone asking "what is it all for?".

My point is, with religious people, they have to want to know that what they believe is wrong, you can't teach them it, just as I couldn't be thought until I started asking my own questions.

AtomicHorror

Húrin wrote: »

he doesn't need such knowledge to justify his own faithlessness, but he had better know it if he is trying to preach atheism to Christians.

Perhaps if his tactic is to disprove elements of scripture. To explain the logic of atheism, no knowledge of scripture should be needed.

CDfm

Goduznt Xzst wrote: »

great thread this... I will be paying close attention to see which tactic I shall use next.

On a personal note, I find leading with "After the flood, how did the Kangaroos get to Australia?" tends to get a raised eyebrow and leads to many more questions. The story of the flood is a gift from God as it's very easy to get a Christian confused over some of the finer points of how it actually happened merely 5000 years ago and the lack of obvious evidence to support it, let alone the ridiculous logistics of the Arc itself.

Well - thats your opinion.

Its all relative. The amazing stuff about Tara in Irish folklore etc.

But the point is that some of it is from oral tradition or copied.Written in its time.

The kangaroos and Austrailia will never account how Dawkins cannot account for what happened pre big bang or whatever. He just says Mr Spocklike that the idea of God is irrational to him. His intellect cant cope with it.

You also dont say what type of Christian faith you were brought up in - so its kindof openen ended.

It must be an uncomfortable kind of atheism if you have to keep proving it.

CerebralCortex

CDfm wrote: »

....how Dawkins cannot account for what happened pre big bang or whatever....

Neither can any christian, muslim, jew, atheist, x, y, z whatever. The difference is atheists forgo the practice of worshiping the god of the gaps. We don't try to prove anything.

AtomicHorror

CDfm wrote: »

The kangaroos and Austrailia will never account how Dawkins cannot account for what happened pre big bang or whatever. He just says Mr Spocklike that the idea of God is irrational to him. His intellect cant cope with it.

You're just obsessed with Dawkins. He really must scare you or something. Why would you assume that God is somewhere merely because you don't know what actually is there? Because a book sort-of says so? It is irrational to assume the existence anything if it can't be observed and isn't needed to explain what we do observe.

His intellect can't cope with it? A man in the sky who said "let there be light" and created the universe? Come on, that's not difficult for anyone to imagine, least of all a man as clearly intelligent as Dawkins. You can disagree with the guy but he's clearly no dunce.

CDfm

AtomicHorror wrote: »

You're just obsessed with Dawkins. He really must scare you or something. Why would you assume that God is somewhere merely because you don't know what actually is there? Because a book sort-of says so? It is irrational to assume the existence anything if it can't be observed and isn't needed to explain what we do observe.

His intellect can't cope with it? A man in the sky who said "let there be light" and created the universe? Come on, that's not difficult for anyone to imagine, least of all a man as clearly intelligent as Dawkins. You can disagree with the guy but he's clearly no dunce.

NO Im not obsesssed with him.

Im obsessed with Phoebe from friends - I think shes gorgeous smart and funny. If anyone wanted to discuss religion from an atheist perspective with me let it be her.

And she could sing smelly cat and explain its evolution to me.

Heaven.

MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM

AtomicHorror

CDfm wrote: »

It must be an uncomfortable kind of atheism if you have to keep proving it.

Yes we're all just clinging to atheism for the meaningless, afterlife-free fun of it. You should have a chat with Wolfbane, his only explanation of our motives is that our wicked hearts are rebelling against God, that we are being deluded by the devil. Of course once we open that particular can of worms, nobody can be sure of their subjective reason.

AtomicHorror

CDfm wrote: »

NO Im not obsesssed with him.

Im obsessed with Phoebe from friends - I think shes gorgeous smart and funny. If anyone wanted to discuss religion from an atheist perspective with me let it be her.

And she could sing smelly cat and explain its evolution to me.

Heaven.

MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM

"Guerilla debater" would be a good description for you. As soon as someone shoots back you exit the argument.

Bduffman

BrianCalgary wrote: »

Dont quite get the question.

When a non-Christian tries to use scripture to prove their point and then refuses to acknowledge scripture when it disproves their point, then that person is not honestly looking for answers, they are looking for a fight.

You've hit the nail on the head there - scripture can both prove & disprove a point at the same time. Kinda sums up the irrationality & contradiction of it all doesn't it?

CDfm

AtomicHorror wrote: »

"Guerilla debater" would be a good description for you. As soon as someone shoots back you exit the argument.

Me exit an argument.Nah.

Wolfbane is a very nice guy. He argues his case honestly and with integrity.
So do I. I just dont have as much time for sophisticated arguments.Im a more "kick the moneylenders from the temple" guy.

Anyway -the thread is about what type of atheist you would argue with and if it was a scientist trying to cite scripture, use science,talk down to me etc I would tell him very forceably to go copulate beget somewhere else. I suspect Wolfbane wouldnt.

BrianCalgary

AtomicHorror wrote: »

Then the question is whether an atheist needs to know scripture to challenge you.

Yes, because Christianity has it's authority in scripture. To try and argue Christianity without reverting to scripture is like debating football without ever seeing a match.

BrianCalgary

Bduffman wrote: »

You've hit the nail on the head there - scripture can both prove & disprove a point at the same time. Kinda sums up the irrationality & contradiction of it all doesn't it?

It can only do so if someone reads what it says out of context. That is the biggest error in all of hermeneutics and exegesis, is the context.

Which shows the irrationality of humans and their failure to understand. I do not understand th ewhole Bible nor do I completely understand God. But th eonly way to get to a greater understanding is through dialogue with a mind being open that one's interpretation could indeed be wrong.

CDfm

Burial wrote: »

Well, my two friends were agrueing about this. (One deeply Christian the other the total opposite) Anyway, they were all talking about stuff, and I was there. I didn't know enough about my own religion or others. I was asked why i chose this religion and I honestly had no idea. Why would I be in a religion, I inheritied into? So I'm waiting for something, I don't know what, to show me which ones are wrong/right. Til then, I'm following the basic principles of every religion. though somedays I swing into Christian and then back into Atheist territory...

Aha - I came accross this on the internet when an atheist posted I need to read more.Think they meant Dawkins but I resisted.

Its called I dont believe in Atheists - Chris Hedges you can get it on the internet and at your local library.

http://www.amazon.com/Dont-Believe-Atheists-Chris-Hedges/dp/141656795X

Goduznt Xzst

CDfm wrote: »

The kangaroos and Austrailia will never account how Dawkins cannot account for what happened pre big bang or whatever. He just says Mr Spocklike that the idea of God is irrational to him. His intellect cant cope with it.

You don't need to know what caused the big bang to know that the bible is wrong. Baby steps, CDfm, baby steps.

CDfm wrote: »

It must be an uncomfortable kind of atheism if you have to keep proving it.

replace "atheism" with "faith" and you are looking yourself in the mirror

CDfm wrote: »

Wolfbane is a very nice guy. He argues his case honestly and with integrity.
So do I.

The moment someones assumes they have honesty and integrity is usually the first sign that they have neither.

CDfm

BrianCalgary wrote: »

Yes, because Christianity has it's authority in scripture. To try and argue Christianity without reverting to scripture is like debating football without ever seeing a match.

Its also true that Christians dont need to read up extensively on atheist writtings to defend their beliefs.

CerebralCortex

BrianCalgary wrote: »

Yes, because Christianity has it's authority in scripture. To try and argue Christianity without reverting to scripture is like debating football without ever seeing a match.

Who's arguing christianity? Atheists never argue christianity why should they, they don't believe in it. You seem to think we're atheists because we disagree with details of christianity but in reality we're atheists because we don't believe in anyones god(atheism). Not all atheists were once christians. Your right I don't debate football because I don't watch or like it. I don't debate christianity because I don't believe in any gods which leaves scripture irrelevant. Why would I read a rule book for something to start with I don't believe in? I was raised a catholic I heard enough scripture though and if you take things on faith to start with it works fine but I don't so its irrelevant.

Bduffman

BrianCalgary wrote: »

But the only way to get to a greater understanding is through dialogue with a mind being open that one's interpretation could indeed be wrong.

Yet another nail hit accurately. But whose mind is more open? The one that constantly looks for evidence to challenge / confirm previous findings? Or one who follows a book that they cannot (and never will) completely understand?

CerebralCortex

CDfm wrote: »

Its also true that Christians dont need to read up extensively on atheist writtings to defend their beliefs.

How exactly do you define atheist writings? When some writes something completely secular? I love the expression atheism is a religion like not collecting stamps is a hobby I think its pertinent.

Mark Hamill

CDfm wrote: »

Me exit an argument.Nah.

Wolfbane is a very nice guy. He argues his case honestly and with integrity.
So do I. I just dont have as much time for sophisticated arguments.Im a more "kick the moneylenders from the temple" guy.

Anyway -the thread is about what type of atheist you would argue with and if it was a scientist trying to cite scripture, use science,talk down to me etc I would tell him very forceably to go copulate beget somewhere else. I suspect Wolfbane wouldnt.

You just admitted that when an argument becomes too complicated for you to keep up with, you resort to violence.

CDfm

Goduznt Xzst wrote: »

You don't need to know what caused the big bang to know that the bible is wrong. Baby steps, CDfm, baby steps.



replace "atheism" with "faith" and you are looking yourself in the mirror



The moment someones assumes they have honesty and integrity is usually the first sign that they have neither.

OK then you explain it to me. First there was nothing -what came before that ?

Then tell me what particular faith you are arguing against or what particular belief sytem?
If you are arguing against the Koran, Judeism or Creationism Baptist or C of E then Im not your guy.

Try me with Catholicism and pick an aspect and I will give you a run for your money.

CDfm

Mark Hamill wrote: »

You just admitted that when an argument becomes too complicated for you to keep up with, you resort to violence.

I didnt say that -what I said is that some believers are prepared to turn the other cheek when they are clearly being laughed at. Im saying I dont.

CerebralCortex

CDfm wrote: »

OK then you explain it to me. First there was nothing -what came before that ?

God! Oh wait a second what came before him? Your on the way to atheism my friend

CDfm wrote: »

Then tell me what particular faith you are arguing against or what particular belief sytem?
If you are arguing against the Koran, Judeism or Creationism Baptist or C of E then Im not your guy.

Try to understand buddy they're all the exact same. When you scrub of the tradition of course.

CDfm wrote: »

Try me with Catholicism and pick an aspect and I will give you a run for your money.

That would be a complete waste of time.

Mark Hamill

CDfm wrote: »

OK then you explain it to me. First there was nothing -what came before that ?

Any answer is not better than no answer. Science may not know yet what it was like before the Big Bang (and may never know), but it will try to explain it and who knows, we learn something interesting on the way. The theistic religions automatic response of "God did it" only ceases the efforts of people to explain things, thus slowing peoples learning.

CDfm wrote: »

Then tell me what particular faith you are arguing against or what particular belief sytem?
If you are arguing against the Koran, Judeism or Creationism Baptist or C of E then Im not your guy.

Try me with Catholicism and pick an aspect and I will give you a run for your money.

Try this (and it applies to any theistic religion really): what makes you think there is a God?

CDfm

CerebralCortex wrote: »

Who's arguing christianity? Atheists never argue christianity why should they, they don't believe in it. You seem to think we're atheists because we disagree with details of christianity but in reality we're atheists because we don't believe in anyones god(atheism). Not all atheists were once christians. Your right I don't debate football because I don't watch or like it. I don't debate christianity because I don't believe in any gods which leaves scripture irrelevant. Why would I read a rule book for something to start with I don't believe in? I was raised a catholic I heard enough scripture though and if you take things on faith to start with it works fine but I don't so its irrelevant.

I often feel sorry for atheists because they dont know where they come from or where they are going to and have to rationalise everything. Even if they were never any good at science in school.