Do atheists have an achilles heel when it comes to religious arguments?

MrPudding

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

If the best people can do is call others up on their punctuation and grammar, then they've already lost the argument.

Perhaps there should be a grammatical, puntuational (is that even a word) & spelling version of Godwins law?

MrP

Goduznt Xzst

Yes, we do have an Achilles heel.

For example, I can say for a large degree of certainty that the story in the Lord of the Rings never happened. It's fantasy. But where I to get into an argument with someone who has read and re-read these books, spends his time acting out scenes from it, has memorized off complete passages... etc, knows the intricacies of these books in and out, then I'd be torn to pieces. I neither have the time nor the inclination to learn in detail all the facets of this book. Regardless of whether the individual I mentioned believes it to be true, it still does not replace the fact that his knowledge of it greatly exceeds mine.

The same is true of the Bible, but to a much greater degree. You don't need to know the intricacies of it to know that Christians have no proof of any afterlife or of their personal God along with his angels and Satan with his Demons. Yet time and again Atheists get into arguments, myself included, about scriptures in the bible and their merits and meaning. By going up against individuals who have devoted their lives to reading and re-reading and studying this book you will fail unless you have put in as much time as them.

It gets worse though, I could sit down with someone like Wolfsbane and learn everything there is to know about the bible from him and what a true Christian should believe. Then proceed to challenge PDN to an argument and fail because his understanding of the Bible differs.

You have to see that Christians can't even come to a common consensus on how to understand the Bible which is why so many sects exists claiming they have the true understanding of it, so what hope does an Atheist have.

JimiTime

Wicknight wrote: »

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.

JimiTime

Goduznt Xzst wrote: »

Yes, we do have an Achilles heel.

For example, I can say for a large degree of certainty that the story in the Lord of the Rings never happened. It's fantasy. But where I to get into an argument with someone who has read and re-read these books, spends his time acting out scenes from it, has memorized off complete passages... etc, knows the intricacies of these books in and out, then I'd be torn to pieces. I neither have the time nor the inclination to learn in detail all the facets of this book. Regardless of whether the individual I mentioned believes it to be true, it still does not replace the fact that his knowledge of it greatly exceeds mine.

The same is true of the Bible, but to a much greater degree. You don't need to know the intricacies of it to know that Christians have no proof of any afterlife or of their personal God along with his angels and Satan with his Demons. Yet time and again Atheists get into arguments, myself included, about scriptures in the bible and their merits and meaning. By going up against individuals who have devoted their lives to reading and re-reading and studying this book you will fail unless you have put in as much time as them.

It gets worse though, I could sit down with someone like Wolfsbane and learn everything there is to know about the bible from him and what a true Christian should believe. Then proceed to challenge PDN to an argument and fail because his understanding of the Bible differs.

You have to see that Christians can't even come to a common consensus on how to understand the Bible which is why so many sects exists claiming they have the true understanding of it, so what hope does an Atheist have.

LOL:D This reminds me of the job interview answer to the question 'Have you any weaknesses?'

The answer being 'Yes, I work too hard.'

robindch

Húrin wrote: »

Atheists also often tend to use teleological arguments, i.e. arguments that invoke progress. In the Godless, meaningless universe, there is no purpose to anything.

Teleological arguments involve purpose, not progress.

In effect, such arguments assert that the universe and our existence in it certainly does have a purpose and as such, these arguments are almost universally rejected by most atheists. On the religious side, however, it is the solemn job of priesthoods to say that a purpose exists, and then to develop and deliver this purpose-driven message to whomever wants one. Unsurprisingly, most "purposes" imply that the priesthoods who provide them must be, er, provided themselves with prestige, power and preferential access to resources.

Cicero's wry Cui bono? is worth bearing in mind here.

cavedave

Are there any positions in a christianity/atheist debate in which you find yourself and backed into a corner?

It is easy to laugh at Christians because they think they will be saved by their imaginary friends. However I think we all have imaginary friends that we think will save us. One problem is that you don't realise your putting your faith in a con till after you realise its a con. So its very hard for us to say now what it is we currently believe in that is a figment of our imagination.

Here are some things I have believed in that i now think may have been imaginary: God,Santa Claus, House prices rising, The stock market rising, Nationalities, Money, Humanism

Money is what people think of as money, whether its paper or gold or cows its just what other people have faith other people will have faith in. The more I learn about genetics and animals the less confident i am in humans having unique properties. Sorry for rambling on but my point is I think most people have really odd beliefs but we don't notice them.

dvpower

Overblood wrote: »

Are there any positions in a christianity/atheist debate in which you find yourself and backed into a corner?

The problem with the whole Christianity/atheist debate is that the domain from where each argument comes from is different.

The Atheist is usually coming from a scientific / evidence standpoint, while for the Christian it is a matter of faith, and faith doesn't rely on evidence.

In answer to the OP, there is no corner to be backed into; the debate is held in a circular room.

Overblood

So is that it? We have no Achilles heel? I thought I'd find a few nuggets from religious posters. Aww.:(

the debate is held in a circular room.

I disagree. Christians do have Achilles heels in debates, but I supose they just don't feel that way. They practice (or suffer from) confirmation bias.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias

They aren't even swayed by the 1000's of inconsistencies in the bastion of their faith - the Holy Bible itself. Hole-y with plot holes that is.:pac:

Dades

Overblood wrote: »

I disagree. Christians do have Achilles heels in debates, but I supose they just don't feel that way. They practice (or suffer from) confirmation bias...

Yes, well that wasn't the OP's question.
What you've brought up is for a whole other thread forum.

Overblood

Eh, I am the OP. :pac:

I was just talking to dvpower.

And the subject of religious confirmation bias for another forum? The other forum? I couldn't.... could I? I'd be shot over yonder.

philologos

Overblood wrote: »

I disagree. Christians do have Achilles heels in debates, but I supose they just don't feel that way. They practice (or suffer from) confirmation bias.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias

I think in the spirit of overriding the confirmation bias you have just displayed in this post, just reviewing over the text. I think that Christians can ignore or be too focused on Christian defences rather than looking at atheistic arguments, however atheists definitely do this too and you'd be lying if you said they don't.

Confirmation bias is of interest in the teaching of critical thinking, as the skill is misused if rigorous critical scrutiny is applied only to evidence challenging a preconceived idea but not to evidence supporting it

What about the God question then? Do atheists really ever consider looking to evidence by indication put forward by Christian apologists? Maybe in isolated cases, but it would be false to say that this is isn't true for quite a few atheists.

Dades

Overblood wrote: »

Eh, I am the OP. :pac:

Can't believe I just pwned myself.

But seriously - let's not go down a "do Christians have an Achilles heel" route! Please keep your own thread on topic.

Overblood

atheists definitely do this [confirmation bias] too and you'd be lying if you said they don't.

We're going a bit off-topic here, but anyway, yes I can see how you think that some atheists are biased that way. But the "evidence" in favour of god which atheists shun is generally paltry. I would instantly reject arguments like "but what about angels, they prove that god exists" or "what about the face of jesus on my toast" etc.

An atheist/skeptic would need proper evidence of the existence of god. Evidence like summoning him/her/it to your kitchen table for dinner would just about suffice.

CerebralCortex

Jakkass wrote: »

....Do atheists really ever consider looking to evidence by indication put forward by Christian apologists? Maybe in isolated cases, but it would be false to say that this is isn't true for quite a few atheists.

Seriously what would be the point if I'm not mistaken Christian apologists are usually, um let me see, Christian. They have an emotional investment in securing the validity of their beliefs. And this idea of apologising really does nothing for the cause. What have they got to be sorry about? Christianity is such a wonderfully robust meme but a meme nonetheless.

Overblood

Just in case:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meme

I wonder where my christian meme went. Not sure if I was even born with one. Does that make me technically retarded?

philologos

CerebralCortex wrote: »

Seriously what would be the point if I'm not mistaken Christian apologists are usually, um let me see, Christian. They have an emotional investment in securing the validity of their beliefs. And this idea of apologising really does nothing for the cause. What have they got to be sorry about? Christianity is such a wonderfully robust meme but a meme nonetheless.

You're just proving yourself to have this confirmation bias. 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.

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.

Christianity is a meme because Dawkins said so? Have you ever considered that atheism could be a meme?

Overblood

I'd say atheism isn't popular enough to be a meme. And the original point referred to all religious folk carrying the meme, not just christians. I doubt there is a chrisitian-specific meme.

Obni

I would like to propose at this point not an Achilles' heel, but rather a point that is perceived as such by various loons.
I have, on occasion, been confronted with various forms of the old chestnut "Well, if there's no God, then why is there 'something' rather than 'nothing'?", usually accompanied by "Ah-ha!" with wagging index finger attached, and an infuriating air of smugness normally only encountered among atheists who've just skewered some unsuspecting catholic on some bonkers biblical nonesense.

The fact that I admit that I honestly don't know the answer is interpreted as conceding the point. Continuing to point out that no-one else knows, and that religion's theories about the origin of universe fall somewhere between blatant lies and witless fantasy, is usually ignored or smothered by an on-going "Ahhhhh, you see" with wagging finger.

Can anyone suggest a pithy comeback to nip the smug-attack in the bud?

My normal response is to point both index fingers at the antagonist, thumbs upward like kids' pretend six-shooters, say "Gotcha!" and sit back looking even more smug, as if they'd just walked into my carefully laid trap.

CerebralCortex

Jakkass wrote: »

You're just proving yourself to have this confirmation bias.

Sorry I don't see it?

Jakkass wrote: »

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.

Jakkass wrote: »

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?

Jakkass wrote: »

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 alarming

Jakkass wrote: »

Have 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,

Zombrex

Jakkass wrote: »

What about the God question then? Do atheists really ever consider looking to evidence by indication put forward by Christian apologists?

Yes, repeatable

Unfortunately you guys tend to ignore any issues we raise about this evidence. For a start I've never seen any evidence put forward for got that wasn't simply a personal assessment (ie I read the Bible and I believe it is true, that sort of thing)

Christians tend to say that we are ignoring evidence that isn't scientific, that isn't testable, but they some what ignore why we are ignoring this evidence. It isn't due to a deep seated need to reject God, it is because such evidence and the conclusions based on them, are so unreliable as to be worthless. You say X and someone else could just as easily say Y. To show you are right and the other person is wrong you need more than simply saying you are, in your opinion, right and the other person is wrong.

Zombrex

Jakkass wrote: »

Christianity is a meme because Dawkins said so? Have you ever considered that atheism could be a meme?

Both are memes.

Not quite sure what use people are using that term, but something being a meme has little to do with whether the culture unit reflects something that is real or not. Star Wars is a set of memes, so are the history of the Roman empire.

philologos

CerebralCortex wrote: »

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.

That isn't too much credit at all. It's called listening to those who oppose you. Interesting you bring up Islam. I've discussed with Muslims on the subject of Christianity before in person, and I've also read Islamic material that deals with the subject of Christianity or as many like to call it "Paulinality". It's interesting stuff, even if I don't agree with it.

Christianity is a lot lot more than just a "creation story" and so is Islam. This is just showing me how one can oversimplify the beliefs of others.

And as for your typing a reply, nobody is forcing you to reply. If you don't want to reply don't, and if you do want to reply, I don't see what use there is in complaining about it. It's a forum, discuss if you feel free, no compulsion.

CerebralCortex wrote: »

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?

I guess everyone brings baggage into a discussion. However, particularly the notion that Christianity must be automatically false is the first conclusion (the same could be said in reverse), secondly the notion that God is somehow as probable as the FSM ignoring all other academic research that has been done into how the Bible has been verified many times by history and archaeology as showing itself to be authentic whereas no such backing has ever been involved in the case of the FSM. Continuing on, the notion that Christianity is intellectual suicide, that Christians are lacking or inferior in intelligence to atheists. All of these are unneccessary and quite frankly inaccurate in the course of a discussion between atheists and theists, infact if reductio ad absurdum arguments in their entirety were left out by atheists and theists in the course of a discussion we could have a lot more of value in the end of it all.

CerebralCortex wrote: »

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 alarming

I'm here to get people to at least be open to a Christian perspective. If you chose to follow Christ in the long run, that would be brilliant, but the decision of faith or no faith is yours and yours alone. As for memes, why isn't atheism a meme in trying to prove it's intellectual validity to Christians and other theists? As for someone saying that atheism isn't popular enough to be a meme surely when you have over 10% worldwide that is a large enough community. However, I'm not sure if I agree with Dawkins concept of the meme, it might be a convenient explanatory factor to explain how societal trends form as a result of Darwinism, but quite frankly I think biology should be left to biology, and sociology left to sociology.

CerebralCortex wrote: »

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,

Yes, horrible that people use their right to evangelise. However, I would disagree with the notion that atheists don't come on the Christianity forum with the interest of proselytism either or in the interest to get people to reject their faith. If this weren't the case then quite frankly there would be a lot less atheists in the Christianity forum, and I think it's safe to suggest that that is very much true.

Zombrex

Jakkass wrote: »

secondly the notion that God is somehow as probable as the FSM ignoring all other academic research that has been done into how the Bible has been verified many times by history and archaeology as showing itself to be authentic whereas no such backing has ever been involved in the case of the FSM.

It is when theists make claims like this that they automatically start losing people because it simply isn't true.

For some reason it reminds me of people talking to kids about drugs. Parents and school teachers tend to tell kids that drugs will kill you, seriously f**k you up, make your life hell etc

The kids look around at their friends taking drugs, see they aren't all dropping like flies and becoming crack whores, and conclude that the parents are just making all this up.

The problem is that in all that there are actually some dangers of drug use, that aren't nearly as sensational as the parents make out but are still there none the less, and this is ignored by the kids who conclude that everything the parents say is nonsense and drugs are perfectly fine.

What does this has to do with Christianity? Often Christians make such ridiculous/flawed/down right false claims about the basis for their religion that people listening to this just tune out. The idea that the Bible has been verified by "authentic" is one such claim, debated to death on the Christianity forum.

Christians who make such a claim instantly lose the audience because anyone who has spent 2 minutes looking at the Bible can determine that there is no way to authentic the stories in it.

People tune out because they think the Christians are just making nonsense up, so why listen to anything else they say. Lost in all that are little facts such as that there is also no way to demonstrate what happened in the Bible certainly didn't happen (the New Testament at least). We simply don't know, we don't have any confirmation and we don't have anyone saying "I was there none of this happened" It ends up becoming a personal assessment that must (or should) involve other considerations external to the Bible

philologos

As for not being able to refute Christianity, I think theres a real opportunity for you if you can disprove that there is such thing as the supernatural, and that the earth is exclusively supernatural while also refuting any other notion on the subject that has been elaborated upon by Christian writers such as C.S Lewis. However that would be another thread for the atheists here to muse upon for a while, and I think it's a thread that the Christians could actually get behind.

Zombrex

Jakkass wrote: »

As for not being able to refute Christianity, I think theres a real opportunity for you if you can disprove that there is such thing as the supernatural

Yes but you know (or should know) that such a request is nonsense because almost by definition the supernatural cannot be tested, and therefore I cannot devise a test or demonstration that would demonstrate that something is not supernatural

See here

Jakkass wrote: »

Refuting any other notion on the subject that has been elaborated upon by Christian writers such as C.S Lewis.

I would happily try and refute all of C.S Lewis's musings on the subject. From what I have read of them they seem quite flawed, and I really don't think pointing out these flaws would be that difficult.

The problem though again is that this isn't the same as proving that God doesn't exist. It is instead demonstrating that the foundations, the rational, for Christians believing what they believe are flawed and unfounded.

And ultimately this is all a bit pointless unless the Christians themselves are prepared to take the step necessary to look at their reasoning in the cold light of day, rather than the warm fuzziness of self-confirmation.

Unfortunately I've met very few who are prepared to do this.Most if not all fall back on the safety net of personal opinion that what they conclude is true irrespective of any external test, and little can persuade them that this is in itself flawed thinking. It nearly always ends up with the position that they believe what they believe, they don't care what anyone else thinks about their belief, they know it is true, and everyone else can sod off.

Black Swan

Could one version of an Achilles heel exist for those that spend all their time claiming what they are not, rather than what they are?

CerebralCortex

Jakkass wrote: »

That isn't too much credit at all. It's called listening to those who oppose you. Interesting you bring up Islam. I've discussed with Muslims on the subject of Christianity before in person, and I've also read Islamic material that deals with the subject of Christianity or as many like to call it "Paulinality". It's interesting stuff, even if I don't agree with it.

Fine its your time. I could think of more interesting and productive things to do but obviously you have a deep interest in the subject. I wonder though you've claimed many times that Christian apologetics come up with some form of evidence then why the need for faith?

Jakkass wrote: »

Christianity is a lot lot more than just a "creation story" and so is Islam. This is just showing me how one can oversimplify the beliefs of others.

Well I'm afraid its up to you to show me otherwise, I doubt you can though.

Jakkass wrote: »

And as for your typing a reply, nobody is forcing you to reply. If you don't want to reply don't, and if you do want to reply, I don't see what use there is in complaining about it. It's a forum, discuss if you feel free, no compulsion.

Yep thanx for the help, but I wanted to reply but my fingers get tired and I'm not really good at getting my point across in text form so.... but I felt like something had to be said now I'm regretting it. You know what in response to the rest of your post see Wicknight's

Jakkass wrote: »

I guess everyone brings baggage into a discussion. However, particularly the notion that Christianity must be automatically false is the first conclusion (the same could be said in reverse), secondly the notion that God is somehow as probable as the FSM ignoring all other academic research that has been done into how the Bible has been verified many times by history and archaeology as showing itself to be authentic whereas no such backing has ever been involved in the case of the FSM. Continuing on, the notion that Christianity is intellectual suicide, that Christians are lacking or inferior in intelligence to atheists. All of these are unneccessary and quite frankly inaccurate in the course of a discussion between atheists and theists, infact if reductio ad absurdum arguments in their entirety were left out by atheists and theists in the course of a discussion we could have a lot more of value in the end of it all.



I'm here to get people to at least be open to a Christian perspective. If you chose to follow Christ in the long run, that would be brilliant, but the decision of faith or no faith is yours and yours alone. As for memes, why isn't atheism a meme in trying to prove it's intellectual validity to Christians and other theists? As for someone saying that atheism isn't popular enough to be a meme surely when you have over 10% worldwide that is a large enough community. However, I'm not sure if I agree with Dawkins concept of the meme, it might be a convenient explanatory factor to explain how societal trends form as a result of Darwinism, but quite frankly I think biology should be left to biology, and sociology left to sociology.



Yes, horrible that people use their right to evangelise. However, I would disagree with the notion that atheists don't come on the Christianity forum with the interest of proselytism either or in the interest to get people to reject their faith. If this weren't the case then quite frankly there would be a lot less atheists in the Christianity forum, and I think it's safe to suggest that that is very much true.

I will respond a little more though but thats I'm out you're just too tiring. One I feel isulted that you would think I would ever turn faith and I guess you'll never really understand what it means to be just as you were born i.e. atheist. Two does the line in bold about faith not make all the academic rubbish in the world redundant if its ultimately about faith? Three CS Lewis is a fantasy writer.
I'm tired I'm going to sleep.

pH

Obni wrote: »

I have, on occasion, been confronted with various forms of the old chestnut "Well, if there's no God, then why is there 'something' rather than 'nothing'?", usually accompanied by "Ah-ha!" with wagging index finger attached, and an infuriating air of smugness normally only encountered among atheists who've just skewered some unsuspecting catholic on some bonkers biblical nonesense.

The fact that I admit that I honestly don't know the answer is interpreted as conceding the point. Continuing to point out that no-one else knows, and that religion's theories about the origin of universe fall somewhere between blatant lies and witless fantasy, is usually ignored or smothered by an on-going "Ahhhhh, you see" with wagging finger.

Can anyone suggest a pithy comeback to nip the smug-attack in the bud?

I do think that this stuff is kind of an Achilles heal, when confronted with absolute nonsense.

I guess one response could be "Why is there God rather than no God?" (accompanied with the finger wagging). You could also ad lib on this theme "Why is there childhood leukaemia rather than no childhood leukaemia?" or "Why are there paedophile priests?"

philologos

CerebralCortex wrote: »

Fine its your time. I could think of more interesting and productive things to do but obviously you have a deep interest in the subject. I wonder though you've claimed many times that Christian apologetics come up with some form of evidence then why the need for faith?

Evidence by indication is rather different to proof. I've explained this before in another thread. There are two different camps in relation to faith in theism in general. Fideists, and rationalists. People who think that theism can be explained by reason fall into the rationalist camp, people who think that theism is a leap of faith and that alone fall into the fideist camp. I'm personally in the former, if you want answers about Scripture they can be found in large amounts.

CerebralCortex wrote: »

Well I'm afraid its up to you to show me otherwise, I doubt you can though.

Prove to you that it is nothing more than a creation story? Are you actually being serious in such a request?

Just look to how the Bible is even written:

Texts held by Jews and Christians
The Torah - Laws and the narrative of how mankind came from Creation to the Hebrews founding the Biblical State of Israel.
The Historical Books - How the Hebrew nation formed from a system of judges into a system of kings, and the history of the Hebrew kingdom.
Poetic books - Books of poetry concerning the divine being by David, Solomon and others, also books of Wisdom such as Proverbs and Ecclesiastes.
Prophetic books - Books which seek to challenge the behaviour of the people at the time and the people who are reading them.

---

Texts held by Christianity only
Gospels - the ministry of Jesus Christ.
Apostolic writings - the writings of the Apostles of Jesus, wisdom for new Christian communities, and prophetic writings for what was to come.

Now are you seriously suggesting to me that there is nothing more than a creation story in the Biblical text? If so, surely the other odd thousand pages of the Bible would be thrown out and people would hold to Genesis 1 and 2 alone? I think merely looking through that list, one can tell that the Biblical text is far more than a narrative of creation.

CerebralCortex wrote: »

One I feel isulted that you would think I would ever turn faith and I guess you'll never really understand what it means to be just as you were born i.e. atheist. Two does the line in bold about faith not make all the academic rubbish in the world redundant if its ultimately about faith? Three CS Lewis is a fantasy writer.
I'm tired I'm going to sleep.

1) I'd hold that children were born agnostic.
2) No, certainly not if you take a rationalist rather than a fideist view.
3) C.S Lewis also wrote Christian apologetics after he converted to Christianity, so not only a fantasy writer.

CerebralCortex

Jakkass wrote: »

...answers about Scripture they can be found in large amounts.

No thats fine again that would be futile, you must be mistaking me for somebody who actually respects Christianity enough to do that.

Jakkass wrote: »

Prove to you that it is nothing more than a creation story? Are you actually being serious in such a request?.....

Yes.

Jakkass wrote: »

....Now are you seriously suggesting to me that there is nothing more than a creation story in the Biblical text?

No that would be changing the argument.

Jakkass wrote: »

If so, surely the other odd thousand pages of the Bible would be thrown out and people would hold to Genesis 1 and 2 alone? I think merely looking through that list, one can tell that the Biblical text is far more than a narrative of creation.

Of course it is but when I said story I mentioned nothing about the bible.

Jakkass wrote: »

1) I'd hold that children were born agnostic.

So when consciousness starts children are aware of the question of god?
I'm afraid we could never agree on that one and I'm still insulted.

Jakkass wrote: »

2) No, certainly not if you take a rationalist rather than a fideist view.

So your belief is completely based in rationality[sic]? No faith involved?

Jakkass wrote: »

3) C.S Lewis also wrote Christian apologetics after he converted to Christianity, so not only a fantasy writer.

Okay.