Why I secretly root for Atheists in Debates

Onesimus

Saw this title from an Article of a Catholic Christian and thought it was odd, so I read it and thought it was a very good article and was wondering ( after you have read all of it ) what your thoughts are?

Why I secretly root for atheists in debates

ShooterSF

He seems to expect that the onus is on us to prove that god doesn't exist, he goes on to say he sees logical arguments as pointless and then acts upset that "new atheists" don't offer any (apparently) logical arguments. He doesn't even seem to list a single positive argument he's experienced from a group of people who he wants to "win"? And again he uses the term "new atheist". So I'm thinking I'd like my time back!

When it mentioned that atheists don't disprove god I lost interest.
When it put William Lane Craig forward as a "genuine Christian intellectual" I gave up entirely.

Turtwig

when faced with genuine Christian intellectuals – such as the philosopher William Lane Craig

I stopped reading there.

Edit damn you King Mob.

Sonics2k

Onesimus wrote: »

Saw this title from an Article of a Catholic Christian and thought it was odd, so I read it and thought it was a very good article and was wondering ( after you have read all of it ) what your thoughts are?

Why I secretly root for atheists in debates

It's called the burden of proof Onesimus.

While I respect peoples right to have faith, it cannot be claimed as true or a fact without actual proof. And no, the Bible and Christian theologians do not count. Not unless every other Holy book and theologian is correct about theirs.

Wiggles88

In his opening he accuses atheists of name calling and misdirection by changing the subject. Then he goes on to call atheist debaters names (Harris' neuroscience is "pseudo science" and he's not on the same philosophical level as William Lane Craig etc etc etc) and only quotes small spinets of debates which suit his argument. The whole article is drivel imo.

And dont get me started on William Lane Craig, that guy has been using the same speech in every bloody debate he's in and every time his opponent points out what nonsense his points are he just ignores them and goes back around in circles.

BluntGuy

All I got from that was this:

-> "New Atheists" don't make logical arguments.
-> Also they're mean.
-> But it doesn't matter because logic doesn't really matter anyway

Authentic religion of any kind has a mystical component that bypasses logic or, rather, that makes logic almost unnecessary.

I did find the WLC "intellectual" comment chucklesome.

Pity because the article premise seemed far more interesting than what it turned out to be.

fitz0

I got as far as

Authentic religion of any kind has a mystical component that bypasses logic or, rather, that makes logic almost unnecessary. In a very real sense, we have an experience of the grandeur of God – an experience of what mystics call the Numinous – that is above and beyond the rational arguments of the human mind. These experiences don’t preclude logic; they just make logic irrelevant. My felt sense of the awesomeness and holiness of Being – of the transcendent power that maintains in existence galaxies as well as my own beating heart – makes me want to fall to my knees. To try to conjure up a logical premise from such an experience to use in an argument seems as absurd as trying to do the same thing after a date with my wife.

I've lost patience with it. His bias clear throughout the article - in the descriptions of Harris and Craig's qualifications, his transcription of quotes, his choice of quotes, his assertion that atheists don't argue well but that "there is a part of me that finds airtight logical arguments inherently unpersuasive" and so on.

He goes on from the top quote to say he would never use personal experience in a debate, yet it's good enough for this article. It begs the question that if personal experience isn't good enough for a debate and he finds logic unconvincing and irrelevant in regard to faith, what exactly is the author's criteria for a good debate?

From my reading, it's the inclusion of WLC, religious scholar extraordinaire.

EDIT: Oh yes, 'New Atheists' - What a silly term.

Onesimus

BluntGuy wrote: »

All I got from that was this:

-> "New Atheists" don't make logical arguments.
-> Also they're mean.
-> But it doesn't matter because logic doesn't really matter anyway



I did find the WLC "intellectual" comment chucklesome.

Pity because the article premise seemed far more interesting than what it turned out to be.

I suspect he is right though on many levels. I mean he is not saying logic does not matter, but that logic has it's limitations and is irrelevant to his faith. I think he put that forth pretty well with the description of his wife.

When it comes to Atheists being ''mean'' I suppose what he is saying that is their behaviour is mean and their arguments not rationalistic but tend to be just a wave of insults and snide remarks that do tend to get a few chuckles even from himself. But that they fail each time to respond with a rationalistic argument and fall back to schoolyard name calling.

I guess that in my own opinion, this forum of A&A when one looks at it from face value, tends to be thriving with stickys such as ''scandal in religion'' or ''funny mockery jokes about religion'' that serve only to relieve the appetite of someone who only wishes to ''mock'' and ''insult'' religion or the existence of God. But if this forum was in anyway true to its name ''Atheism and Agnosticism'', it would instead get rid of the bad manners and be thriving with stickys and posts that offer a logical and rational argument for the non-existence of God, instead of just throwing out insults.

PopePalpatine

This man makes John Waters seem sensical! :pac:

Sonics2k

Onesimus wrote: »

I suspect he is right though on many levels. I mean he is not saying logic does not matter, but that logic has it's limitations and is irrelevant to his faith. I think he put that forth pretty well with the description of his wife.

There is no logic in faith. Quite literally none.
You are breaking all logic by believing in an all powerful being that defies time and space, manages to influence early human culture but seems to have miraculously wandered off. What was a God that would happily flood the world (genocide), kill the children of the Egyptians (innocent children, more genocide) and so on, now only seems to reveal himself on toast and the hair on a dog's bum.

Onesimus wrote: »

When it comes to Atheists being ''mean'' I suppose what he is saying that is their behaviour is mean and their arguments not rationalistic but tend to be just a wave of insults and snide remarks that do tend to get a few chuckles even from himself. But that they fail each time to respond with a rationalistic argument and fall back to schoolyard name calling.

Again, you speaking of being rational.
The argument for religion is 'This Holy book says it's true, so it is."
Atheists say 'Yeah, but there's no actual proof in this thing.'

That's Atheists being rational.

Onesimus wrote: »

I guess that in my own opinion, this forum of A&A when one looks at it from face value, tends to be thriving with stickys such as ''scandal in religion'' or ''funny mockery jokes about religion'' that serve only to relieve the appetite of someone who only wishes to ''mock'' and ''insult'' religion or the existence of God. But if this forum was in anyway true to its name ''Atheism and Agnosticism'', it would instead get rid of the bad manners and be thriving with stickys and posts that offer a logical and rational argument for the non-existence of God, instead of just throwing out insults.

Many things are discussed here, and seeing as there are near daily Scandals going on in the religious world, it makes sense to have a sticky to lower the cluter and save bandwith.

There is yet to be a rational argument or any form of proof that a God(s) is real.

Wiggles88

Onesimus wrote: »

I suspect he is right though on many levels. I mean he is not saying logic does not matter, but that logic has it's limitations and is irrelevant to his faith. I think he put that forth pretty well with the description of his wife.

When it comes to Atheists being ''mean'' I suppose what he is saying that is their behaviour is mean and their arguments not rationalistic but tend to be just a wave of insults and snide remarks that do tend to get a few chuckles even from himself. But that they fail each time to respond with a rationalistic argument and fall back to schoolyard name calling.

First you say logic is irrelevant to faith than you ask for rationalistic arguments against religion. You dont see the contradiction there?

Onesimus wrote: »

I guess that in my own opinion, this forum of A&A when one looks at it from face value, tends to be thriving with stickys such as ''scandal in religion'' or ''funny mockery jokes about religion'' that serve only to relieve the appetite of someone who only wishes to ''mock'' and ''insult'' religion or the existence of God.

The hazards of belief, ongoing religious scandals and funny side of religion threads thrive so well because there is an endless supply of hate, bigotry, religious cover ups, and outright ridiculousness brought about by religious beliefs. If theses things no longer existed than I would be here arguing against said threads but since that is not the case they are (imho) good tools for showing the dangers of religion.

Onesimus wrote: »

But if this forum was in anyway true to its name ''Atheism and Agnosticism'', it would instead get rid of the bad manners and be thriving with stickys and posts that offer a logical and rational argument for the non-existence of God, instead of just throwing out insults.

Atheism does not equal "there is no god(s)." Atheism is simply a lack of belief in god(s). The onus is on those putting forth the idea that there is a god to prove their claim.

Dades

Onesimus wrote: »

I guess that in my own opinion, this forum of A&A when one looks at it from face value, tends to be thriving with stickys such as ''scandal in religion'' or ''funny mockery jokes about religion'' that serve only to relieve the appetite of someone who only wishes to ''mock'' and ''insult'' religion or the existence of God. But if this forum was in anyway true to its name ''Atheism and Agnosticism'', it would instead get rid of the bad manners and be thriving with stickys and posts that offer a logical and rational argument for the non-existence of God, instead of just throwing out insults.

Oh dear. Your article didn't get the love you were hoping for, so you go on the attack. I would have thought the responses you got were reasoned, no?

Why also did you ignore the posts explaining how the burdon of proof is not on an atheist to show the non-existence of God, but rather on the person making the claim something exists in the first place?

This selective ignoring of answers renders any criticism of this forum meaningless.

Regarding logical and rational argument, if you have one for the existence of the God you believe in, let's have it.

BluntGuy

Onesimus wrote: »

I suspect he is right though on many levels. I mean he is not saying logic does not matter, but that logic has it's limitations and is irrelevant to his faith. I think he put that forth pretty well with the description of his wife.

On what levels is he right? What is he right about?

To me all it looks like is he essentially just admitted he sidesteps logic because it's inconvenient.

But if this forum was in anyway true to its name ''Atheism and Agnosticism'', it would instead get rid of the bad manners and be thriving with stickys and posts that offer a logical and rational argument for the non-existence of God, instead of just throwing out insults.

I don't post here often but I lurk enough to know that if people came here attempting to offer good faith logical and rational arguments for the existence of god they'd be logically and rationally debated. I'd personally be happy to debate you.

Where are these "bad manners" to which you allude? Is it "bad manners" to ridicule a set of beliefs you find ridiculous, in a forum which is clearly intended for the types of people who would do so?

Ickle Magoo

Anyone who holds WLC up as a bastion of intellectual discussion/debate is in serious trouble from the get go. I gave up on page three when I couldn't stomach the hero worship and brown nosing any more.

I do get confused as to why some theists keep making these silly demands that atheists "disprove the existence of god" and their boringly predictably little chortles that they can't...ignoring the fact that if that's what passes for a reasoned dismissal - it works both ways.

MagicMarker

Onesimus wrote: »

I suspect he is right though on many levels. I mean he is not saying logic does not matter, but that logic has it's limitations and is irrelevant to his faith. I think he put that forth pretty well with the description of his wife.

Well, suspension of logic in matters of faith is pretty moronic if you ask me.

Onesimus wrote: »

When it comes to Atheists being ''mean'' I suppose what he is saying that is their behaviour is mean and their arguments not rationalistic but tend to be just a wave of insults and snide remarks that do tend to get a few chuckles even from himself. But that they fail each time to respond with a rationalistic argument and fall back to schoolyard name calling.

Theists do the same thing, it's a human condition, not exclusive to atheists.

Onesimus wrote: »

I guess that in my own opinion, this forum of A&A when one looks at it from face value, tends to be thriving with stickys such as ''scandal in religion'' or ''funny mockery jokes about religion'' that serve only to relieve the appetite of someone who only wishes to ''mock'' and ''insult'' religion or the existence of God. But if this forum was in anyway true to its name ''Atheism and Agnosticism'', it would instead get rid of the bad manners and be thriving with stickys and posts that offer a logical and rational argument for the non-existence of God, instead of just throwing out insults.

This forum wasn't created to prove the non-existence of god, no one here believes god exists so why would we discuss among ourselves why god doesn't exist? It's already taken as a given. I don't meet up for a drink with my friends who don't believe in fairies and try and come up with rational arguments why fairies don't exist. That would be absurd to me.

However, when believers venture in to this forum then we'll engage with them and their arguments for the existence of god or lack there of. In the mean time discussions in this forum generally revolve around religion and it's impact on society.

I'm sorry if you don't like the stickys, but in case you didn't realise, we don't care. If it offends you that much then you should come up with a better, more logical and less mock-worthy religion.

Onesimus

There is no logic in faith. Quite literally none.
You are breaking all logic by believing in an all powerful being that defies time and space, manages to influence early human culture but seems to have miraculously wandered off. What was a God that would happily flood the world (genocide), kill the children of the Egyptians (innocent children, more genocide) and so on, now only seems to reveal himself on toast and the hair on a dog's bum.

But Atheists have the burden of proving Gods non-existence as well and retain faith too. So one can say there is no logic in their faith and not believing in God. But again I can see that your comment has just ended in insults. Hardly persuasive.

Many things are discussed here, and seeing as there are near daily Scandals going on in the religious world, it makes sense to have a sticky to lower the cluter and save bandwith.

Many things are discussed in After Hours because its a ''for all'' topics area kind of place on boards. But if this is an A&A forum then it would only seem right that they would discard the bad manners and actually encourage people to stay true to its roots which is to put forth logical arguments for the non-existence of God instead of insulting it all.

Even in this thread people have decided to insult Craig rather than anything else.

Sonics2k

Onesimus wrote: »

But Atheists have the burden of proving Gods non-existence as well and retain faith too. So one can say there is no logic in their faith and not believing in God. But again I can see that your comment has just ended in insults. Hardly persuasive.

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

Also, there's no insults in my post.

Ickle Magoo

Onesimus wrote: »

But Atheists have the burden of proving Gods non-existence as well and retain faith too. So one can say there is no logic in their faith and not believing in God.

I've never believed in a god - I was born not believing in a god and nothing I've seen, heard or read since has convinced me otherwise...why on earth should the burden be on me to prove anything? Surely it's up to those who were convinced to show who, what, where and how their god exists?

Onesimus wrote: »

But again I can see that your comment has just ended in insults. Hardly persuasive.

Says the theist who waltzes in and accuses everyone of bad manner...hey black pot...

Onesimus

I've never believed in a god - I was born not believing in a god and nothing I've seen, heard or read since has convinced me otherwise...why on earth should the burden be on me to prove anything? Surely it's up to those who were convinced to show who, what, where and how their god exists?

This is simply a smokescreen and not addressing what I said at all. The burden is on you to prove simply because you say there is no God and the fact you claim to be born that way does not release you from proving that God does not exist.

Ickle Magoo

Ah, but I don't say there's no god. I say, and I quote: I was born not believing in a god and nothing I've seen, heard or read since has convinced me otherwise...

So convince me.

fitz0

Onesimus wrote: »

This is simply a smokescreen and not addressing what I said at all. The burden is on you to prove simply because you say there is no God and the fact you claim to be born that way does not release you from proving that God does not exist.

This is simply a smokescreen and not addressing what I said at all. The burden is on you to prove simply because you say there is a God and the fact you claim to be born that way does not release you from proving that God exists.

See what I did there?

Wiggles88

Onesimus wrote: »

This is simply a smokescreen and not addressing what I said at all. The burden is on you to prove simply because you say there is no God and the fact you claim to be born that way does not release you from proving that God does not exist.

The burden of proof is on the one making the claim, in this case the claim "there is a god." Until such time as a good argument is put forward to support this claim then there is no logical reason to believe in said claim.

Sonics2k

Onesimus wrote: »

This is simply a smokescreen and not addressing what I said at all. The burden is on you to prove simply because you say there is no God and the fact you claim to be born that way does not release you from proving that God does not exist.

Um, at least read the link I gave you.

Here is how the -world- works.

Someone claims something is true. Everyone else says 'Prove it'.

In this case, Christianity claims God is real. They have yet to prove it.

Turtwig

Onesimus wrote: »

This is simply a smokescreen and not addressing what I said at all. The burden is on you to prove simply because you say there is no God and the fact you claim to be born that way does not release you from proving that God does not exist.

Let me put this in simple terms.

My belief : You came from stardust and into stardust you will return.

Your belief : You came from a Almighty Creator whom if you do not believe in the existence of, or worship him, you will spend an eternity in hell.

Court case analogy.

Me : I'm innocent.

You : Jernal is guilty of not believing in God and therefore will suffer an eternity in hell.

Burden of proof is on you to prove my guilt, not me to prove my innocence.

Onesimus

Onesimus wrote: »

This is simply a smokescreen and not addressing what I said at all. The burden is on you to prove simply because you say there is no God and the fact you claim to be born that way does not release you from proving that God does not exist.

Onesimus can you please provide us the exact logical reasoning you use to prove that fairies or aliens or whatever non-existent or ficitional entity you'd like to use does not exist?

If you can prove to use that something does not exist, then maybe we can discuss the point you are trying to make.

Otherwise you'll be forced to admit you don't need to (and can't) prove something does not exist to not believe in it's existence.

enfant terrible

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

Anyone who holds WLC up as a bastion of intellectual discussion/debate is in serious trouble from the get go.

Yes WLC would be no match to any of the people on here.

Ickle Magoo

enfant terrible wrote: »

Yes WLC would be no match to any of the people on here.

Kind of you to say so.

Onesimus

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

Ah, but I don't say there's no god. I say, and I quote: I was born not believing in a god and nothing I've seen, heard or read since has convinced me otherwise...

So convince me.

Ok so let me ask you a question. What do you think of ''Faith''?

Gordon

I never go onto religious forums and try to deride their beliefs, why are you trying to attack the people in this forum?

What is it with religious people and people that defend religion coming here trying to barge in with their religious ideologies in order to attack atheism? Stop trying to convert people to believing in your childish, nonsensical fairy stories. I imagine Jesus et al wouldn't have wanted the spread of hate in this world so why do you?

Bannasidhe

Sonics2k wrote: »

Um, at least read the link I gave you.

Here is how the -world- works.

Someone claims something is true. Everyone else says 'Prove it'.

In this case, Christianity claims God is real. They have yet to prove it.

I have an lorange tree growing outside in the middle of my garden in Cork. A lorange tree grows both oranges and lemons at the same time. It is loaded with ripe fruit now.

Ya'll can't prove I don't with your unreasoning logic!