Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
Do atheists have an achilles heel when it comes to religious arguments?
-
28-01-2009 9:54pm#1I was thinking to myself that there are so many lethal questions and facts an atheist can summon in a religious argument (like asking about the thousands of inconsistencies and contradictions and silly stories like that guy who lived in the fish etc.), that there has to be a few from the christians that catch us out. Can't think of any though.
And some christians may come along and say that they have "never heard any of those lethal questions, what the devil are you talking about?". I think that they have some sort of meme-like filter on the brain which just ignores any inconsistencies in their beliefs. So that's why the questions may not seem so lethal to them.
Are there any positions in a christianity/atheist debate in which you find yourself and backed into a corner?0
Comments
-
I was thinking to myself that there are so many lethal questions and facts an atheist can summon in a religious argument (like asking about the thousands of inconsistencies and contradictions and silly stories like that guy who lived in the fish etc.), that there has to be a few from the christians that catch us out. Can't think of any though.
And some christians may come along and say that they have "never heard any of those lethal questions, what the devil are you talking about?". I think that they have some sort of meme-like filter on the brain which just ignores any inconsistencies in their beliefs. So that's why the questions may not seem so lethal to them.
Are there any positions in a christianity/atheist debate in which you find yourself and backed into a corner?
That told us. 0 -
-
-
-
I find its impossible to argue with someone who interrupts you before you finish answering a question, it really fries my thought pattern. I guess its more of a general problem than a religion specific one. I dont think I'd last too well on Bill O Reilly.
As far as rational discussions go I dont think my position on god and religion has any corners to be backed into, its very malleable. If someone makes an noteworthy point then I take it on to see if its got merit.0 -
Advertisement
-
-
-
I find it ironic that if Atheists had their way there would be no Christmas, no Lent, no Easter, no Paddy's Day, no Christenings/Communions/Confirmations/Weddings/Funerals or any other excuse for a piss-up. No excuse to get out of the house on a Sunday and meet the neighbours if nothing else. Who are the buzzkills now!
0 -
-
-
Advertisement
-
ArmCandyBaby wrote: »I find it ironic that if Atheists had their way there would be no Christmas, no Lent, no Easter, no Paddy's Day, no Christenings/Communions/Confirmations/Weddings/Funerals or any other excuse for a piss-up. No excuse to get out of the house on a Sunday and meet the neighbours if nothing else. Who are the buzzkills now!
I kind of like the irony of going a to see the "No Paddies day" parade... And we'll give Christmas back to the pagans and we can celebrate that too:D Dick Dawkins Day!0 -
-
-
-
-
-
ArmCandyBaby wrote: »I find it ironic that if Atheists had their way there would be no Christmas, no Lent, no Easter, no Paddy's Day, no Christenings/Communions/Confirmations/Weddings/Funerals or any other excuse for a piss-up. No excuse to get out of the house on a Sunday and meet the neighbours if nothing else. Who are the buzzkills now!
You're absolutely right. People believe there is no reason to have fun/enjoy themselves unless there's a religious motive behind it. I'm glad you have such a good relationship with your neighbours that you never see them except on sundays when you engage in your weekly cannibalism0 -
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
Enough with the grammar monkeys.
You need an excuse to get out of your own house? House arrest must be a religious thing. :pac:ArmCandyBaby wrote: »No excuse to get out of the house on a Sunday and meet the neighbours if nothing else. Who are the buzzkills now!0 -
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
I would take a similar yet opposite position of Húrin's position
The atheists Achille's heal is that they spend far far too much time trying to answer the theist when they say "Prove to me God doesn't exist", rather than trying to explain that that question is nonsense and why the theist's position is untestable, unfalsifiable, and as such pretty worthless.
If you look at why theists believe in the supernatural things they believe there is really nothing there expect personal interpretation. Wolfsbane goes as far as to say he "Just know" that God confirmed everything is truth. Theists interpret various things (they would call them "evidence" for God) they see or experience or feel and funnel all that down as confirmation to them that God (or what ever supernatural being) exists. It just so happens that this conclusion provides them with a sense of belonging, a sense of purpose, a sense of love, and promise of an after life. But that is just a coincidence
Atheists spend an awful lot of time trying to show them that they are wrong, but really that is some what impossible because what you end up arguing against is personal interpretation. For the person to change their mind they need to change their interpretation and nothing can cause that to happen. They either will or they won't, you can't demonstrate that the conclusion they reach from thinking about something is wrong unless they provide some external test that can be measured or tested. Which theists never do.
Which is why the assertion "Prove to me God doesn't exist" is so loaded and silly. That isn't possible to do, because the only reason they believe God exists in the first place is because of a conclusion they have made in their own head. There is nothing to their conclusion that is independent of their opinion. There is no test. It is not falsifiable. It is just their opinion. It is like asking someone to prove to me that I don't like chocolate ice-cream. The only way to do that is to convince me I don't like it, and if I don't want to accept that then there is nothing you can do. No matter what you say or do (you could show me getting sick after eating some) that will never change my mind unless I want it to change. There is no test independent of my personal opinion to demonstrate the truth of the statement to me. Which is fine when you are talking about a personal opinion of mine, but when you are talking about something that is supposed to exist external to me then it becomes nonsense. A person's personal feelings on whether God exists or not should be irrelevant, but to the theist they become the be all and end all of "proof" that God exists.
I think this is possibly why atheists such as Dawkins seem to get so annoyed when debating theists.
Personal opinion that something is true wouldn't in the door of a science lab, let alone be taken seriously in a debate about the existence of some molecule or phenomena. If someone said they "just know" that the Higgs field exists and wanted that accepted until it could be proven it doesn't, they would be laughed out of the room.Scientists like Dawkins aren't used to dealing with people who hold strong conviction that their personal opinion on something means a whole lot or is some how a good reason to hold something is true. It is almost like they are caught off guard, that they simply don't accept that someone would actually hold such a flawed position.
So when faced with the challange of "Prove to me God doesn't exist or I will continue to accept my personal assessment that he does" they some what take the bait and actually try and do that, without realising that it is a nonsense way to debate.
It ends up with the atheist putting forward a load of points and the theist responding with something along the lines of "All very interesting, but that hasn't convinced me that my personal assessment that he exists is wrong" To which the atheist should be saying "Of course it hasn't! It is a just a personal opinion of yours!" and ending the debate, which thankfully I think a lot have realised, including Dawkins. Others continue to keep banging the head against the wall. Some what of a waste of time.
What they should be doing is trying to explain why personal opinion doesn't matter, it doesn't demonstrate anything. Science realises this hundreds of years ago, and now anything in science must be demonstratable independently of personal opinion or assessment. What individual scientists believe about something is rather irrelevant. What matters is what they can demonstrate to others who don't have to share the opinion to accept it.
Trying to get theists to realise the validity of this way of approaching an issue, any issue, such as does God exist, is far more worth while pursuit than trying to "prove" to them God doesn't exist.
I'm not saying it is easy, plenty of theists simply don't get why that scientific approach is better than something like personal assessment. How often has someone said "Science is limited" and then rushed to embrace something that has none of the safe guards science does. And plenty are blinded by simply not wanting to introduce doubt to their faith.
But trying to answer why God doesn't exist is ultimately fruitless because the reasons God exists are only in the heads of the believers and it is very difficult to argue against that.0 -
-
-
I would take a similar yet opposite position of Húrin's position
The atheists Achille's heal is that they spend far far too much time trying to answer the theist when they say "Prove to me God doesn't exist", rather than trying to explain that that question is nonsense and why the theist's position is untestable, unfalsifiable, and as such pretty worthless.
If you look at why theists believe in the supernatural things they believe there is really nothing there expect personal interpretation. Wolfsbane goes as far as to say he "Just know" that God confirmed everything is truth. Theists interpret various things (they would call them "evidence" for God) they see or experience or feel and funnel all that down as confirmation to them that God (or what ever supernatural being) exists. It just so happens that this conclusion provides them with a sense of belonging, a sense of purpose, a sense of love, and promise of an after life. But that is just a coincidence
Atheists spend an awful lot of time trying to show them that they are wrong, but really that is some what impossible because what you end up arguing against is personal interpretation. For the person to change their mind they need to change their interpretation and nothing can cause that to happen. They either will or they won't, you can't demonstrate that the conclusion they reach from thinking about something is wrong unless they provide some external test that can be measured or tested. Which theists never do.
Which is why the assertion "Prove to me God doesn't exist" is so loaded and silly. That isn't possible to do, because the only reason they believe God exists in the first place is because of a conclusion they have made in their own head. There is nothing to their conclusion that is independent of their opinion. There is no test. It is not falsifiable. It is just their opinion. It is like asking someone to prove to me that I don't like chocolate ice-cream. The only way to do that is to convince me I don't like it, and if I don't want to accept that then there is nothing you can do. No matter what you say or do (you could show me getting sick after eating some) that will never change my mind unless I want it to change. There is no test independent of my personal opinion to demonstrate the truth of the statement to me. Which is fine when you are talking about a personal opinion of mine, but when you are talking about something that is supposed to exist external to me then it becomes nonsense. A person's personal feelings on whether God exists or not should be irrelevant, but to the theist they become the be all and end all of "proof" that God exists.
I think this is possibly why atheists such as Dawkins seem to get so annoyed when debating theists.
Personal opinion that something is true wouldn't in the door of a science lab, let alone be taken seriously in a debate about the existence of some molecule or phenomena. If someone said they "just know" that the Higgs field exists and wanted that accepted until it could be proven it doesn't, they would be laughed out of the room.Scientists like Dawkins aren't used to dealing with people who hold strong conviction that their personal opinion on something means a whole lot or is some how a good reason to hold something is true. It is almost like they are caught off guard, that they simply don't accept that someone would actually hold such a flawed position.
So when faced with the challange of "Prove to me God doesn't exist or I will continue to accept my personal assessment that he does" they some what take the bait and actually try and do that, without realising that it is a nonsense way to debate.
It ends up with the atheist putting forward a load of points and the theist responding with something along the lines of "All very interesting, but that hasn't convinced me that my personal assessment that he exists is wrong" To which the atheist should be saying "Of course it hasn't! It is a just a personal opinion of yours!" and ending the debate, which thankfully I think a lot have realised, including Dawkins. Others continue to keep banging the head against the wall. Some what of a waste of time.
What they should be doing is trying to explain why personal opinion doesn't matter, it doesn't demonstrate anything. Science realises this hundreds of years ago, and now anything in science must be demonstratable independently of personal opinion or assessment. What individual scientists believe about something is rather irrelevant. What matters is what they can demonstrate to others who don't have to share the opinion to accept it.
Trying to get theists to realise the validity of this way of approaching an issue, any issue, such as does God exist, is far more worth while pursuit than trying to "prove" to them God doesn't exist.
I'm not saying it is easy, plenty of theists simply don't get why that scientific approach is better than something like personal assessment. How often has someone said "Science is limited" and then rushed to embrace something that has none of the safe guards science does. And plenty are blinded by simply not wanting to introduce doubt to their faith.
But trying to answer why God doesn't exist is ultimately fruitless because the reasons God exists are only in the heads of the believers and it is very difficult to argue against that.
Very informative post. People really seem to want to categorise other people. Be they atheist or Theist, it seems to come down to 'You don't believe me, because there's something wrong with you'. Everyone wants to feel like they've figured it out. There is an inherant stupidity about it all. I think you hit the nail on the head though. Both standing on such very different grounds, its a silly exercise to engage in. If we start from a 'Proove this or that', then its pointless. The atheist, more often than not, has let science be his rock, and in doing so, requires all evidences, proofs or whatever you want to call it to go through the vigours of the scientific method. The theist on the other hand, approaches the God question from outside the realm of science. So we have some atheists wanting scientifically verifiable proof of God, knowing that it doesn't exist in any form acceptable, and some theists who, knowing that God is outside of scientific measuring methods, still try proove it.
It really is as simple as, if science is your God so to speak, the source of what you believe etc, then no-one is going to be able to show you God exists. Its why I approach things from a testimonial perspective. I can share what I believe, and testify as to how I was convinced. Its then a take it or leave it scenario. As you described, it is a personal thing. It may be based on things around us etc, but yeah, its personal. Thats all we've got. Thats all we are told we've got. Testify the good news, some people will take it, some people wont. So thats another 2 cent.0 -
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
You're just proving yourself to have this confirmation bias.
Sorry I don't see it?Even if they are Christians you should at least consider the Christian side of the argument instead of just rejecting it outright to accept whatever atheists have to say.
Now you're giving too much credit to the Christian side of the argument as you would much as a Muslim about Islam. An argument which provides nothing but a lame attempt at trying to make itself look like something more than a creation story. Even typing this reply was too much of a consideration.It does a lot for the cause if you are willing to set aside your preconceptions and actually listen to what some of these people have to say and think about it for yourself with these preconceptions firmly in the bin.
Which cause? I have no cause nor atheism if I think about it. You as a theist are just looking to create something to resist against if you think it does.
What preconceptions? What in fact are you talking about?Christianity is a meme because Dawkins said so?
Well you're in here trying to spread the word of Christ in your attempts to prove its intellectual validity so my meme alarm is well alarmingHave you ever considered that atheism could be a meme?
Yes I have but nobody has come to my door trying to spread the good word of atheism and I don't live my life by the good book of Dawkins,0 -
-
Advertisement
![[Deleted User]](/applications/dashboard/design/images/defaulticon.png)
Advertisement