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!

Monty Burnz

Without investing too much time in the whys and wherefores, surely there's a rather large hole in Craig's argument:

Craig: But secondly, the problem that’s even worse is the “ought implies can” problem. In the absence of the ability to do otherwise, there is no moral responsibility. In the absence of freedom of the will, we are just puppets or electro-chemical machines. And puppets do not have moral responsibilities. Machines are not moral agents. But on Dr. Harris’s view, there is no freedom of the will, either in a libertarian or a compatibilistic sense, and therefore, there is no moral responsibility. So there isn’t even the possibility of moral duty on his view. So while I can affirm and applaud Dr. Harris’s affirmation of the objectivity of moral values and moral duties, at the end of the day his philosophical worldview just doesn’t ground these entities that we both want to affirm. If God exists, then we clearly have a sound foundation for objective moral values and moral duties. But if God does not exist, that is, if atheism is true, then there is no basis for the affirmation of objective moral values; and there is no ground for objective moral duties because there is no moral lawgiver and there is no freedom of the will. And therefore it seems to me that atheism is simply bereft of the adequate ontological foundations to establish the moral life.

...and yet atheists can agree objective moral values, along the lines of 'don't harm others', 'don't steal', 'don't kill' and so forth. How are these values less objective than - say - the ten commandments?

Craig's position is effectively that of a man explaining why heavier than air vehicles will never fly, even as the Red Arrows are whizzing around over his head. 'Sure, it may work in practice - but it doesn't work in theory'.

Ickle Magoo

Onesimus wrote: »

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

Beyond it's something I haven't ever had - not a lot.

Sonics2k

Onesimus wrote: »

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

I'm a fan of George Michaels version, but Limp Bizkits 1998 cover was fantastic.

Bannasidhe

I've known people with it. Sometimes it brought them great peace and comfort. Which is nice.
Other times their fear of displeasing this God they had 'faith' is caused them torment.
Which is not nice.

Wouldn't want it myself. Seems like a bit of a roller coaster of conflicting beliefs and emotions tbh.

Onesimus

Onesimus wrote: »

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

Code word for the suspension of logic and sense in the face of inconsistencies, contradictions and other failures of logic and sense that religion inevitably leads you to.

Monty Burnz

King Mob wrote: »

Code word for the suspension of logic and sense in the face of inconsistencies, contradictions and other failures of logic and sense that religion inevitably leads you to.

Indeed. "I know it doesn't make sense, but I really, really want it to be true".

JimiTime

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

Interesting take on things there Onesimus.

This line struck a chord, though is not exclusive to atheism:

The New Atheists are plainly accustomed to standing up in front of large groups of college students, making snide put-downs that get a lot of laughs and applause

Knowing that one has an audience can be a distraction from an honest dialogue. I think sometimes the temptation to 'thanks whore' as its called on forums, is too great for some.

Monty Burnz

Monty Burnz wrote: »

Indeed. "I know it doesn't make sense, but I really, really want it to be true".

Or to paraphrase Kierkegaard: "It has to not make sense, otherwise there would be no need for faith."

Sarky

JimiTime wrote: »

Knowing that one has an audience can be a distraction from an honest dialogue. I think sometimes the temptation to 'thanks whore' as its called on forums, is too great for some.

Is that why you were being obtuse, dishonest, snide and insulting over on the other forum about same-sex couples?

And how did it feel to get so few thanks on your home turf, as it were? Did it feel good?

JimiTime

Sarky wrote: »

Is that why you were being obtuse, dishonest, snide and insulting over on the other forum about same-sex couples?

You are more than welcome to prove all of those baseless accusations on the thread in question. though there is a distinct irony that you would say those things in this thread

And how did it feel to get so few thanks on your home turf, as it were? Did it feel good?

It didn't feel anything tbh. Why on earth would it matter?

robindch

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 [...]

Let me look at the first paragraph:

First line: Plug for own book including link to buy - check!
Second line: Inflate reputation by dropping hint that self is so important that self is invited to partake in university-level debates in different countries - check!
Third line: Inflate reputation by dropping that self appears on the radio - check!
Fourth line: Inflate reputation by noting confidence levels - check!
Fifth line: Sneer at atheists - check!
Sixth line: Bear false witness against atheists - check!
Fifth para: Complain about atheists sneering and debating in bad faith check!

And so on. Whatever about the rest of it, and it's miserable, cliched and dull stuff -- though lightened by his splendidly inept use of the "root" as a verb --- his referring to Mr Craig as an intellectual really is unforgivable.

If this is the best the religious community can produce when it tries to have dindins at the top table with the big boys and girls, then frankly, us atheists and agnostics don't have much to worry about.

JimiTime

robindch wrote: »

Let me look at the first paragraph:

First line: Plug for own book including link to buy - check!
Second line: Inflate reputation by dropping hint that self is so important that self is invited to partake in university-level debates in different countries - check!
Third line: Inflate reputation by dropping that self appears on the radio - check!
Fourth line: Inflate reputation by noting confidence levels - check!
Fifth line: Sneer at atheists - check!
Sixth line: Bear false witness against atheists - check!
Fifth para: Complain about atheists sneering and debating in bad faith check!

And so on. Whatever about the rest of it, and it's miserable, cliched and dull stuff -- though lightened by his splendidly inept use of the "root" as a verb --- his referring to Mr Craig as an intellectual really is unforgivable.

If this is the best the religious community can produce when it tries to have dindins at the top table with the big boys and girls, then frankly, us atheists and agnostics don't have much to worry about.

The great thing about it though, is that it sets responses like this up as wonderful examples of irony.

robindch

JimiTime wrote: »

[...] an audience can be a distraction from an honest dialogue.

A sentiment I presume you believe does not apply in churches.

robindch

JimiTime wrote: »

[...] wonderful examples of irony.

From a quick read of the piece, and a huge guffaw at the title, I don't believe that Mr Hutchinson is familiar with the theory or practice of irony.

JimiTime

robindch wrote: »

A sentiment I presume you believe does not apply in churches.

On the contrary. It can most certainly apply.

marienbad

Onesimus wrote: »

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

''Faith is the assurance of things hoped for and the conviction of things not seen'' is as good a definition as any.

I can never understand this christian obsession with ''proof'' - surely proof is the enemy of faith which is what belief is all about .

If it could be proved we would all believe as we do gravity so what is the point ?

This constant need for proof hides a secret doubt methinks

joseph brand

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.

If he's admitting that his faith, which I'm sure he lives his whole life by and gets his morals and world views from, is illogical, then what's the point in debating? Don't debates use facts and logic? Perhaps he's impenetrable as far as logic, reason and common sense are concerned. A genuine shield of ignorance, worn proudly.

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.

Forgive me for sounding snide, but using the word 'mean' sounds like we're back in the school yard. "I'm tellin teacher!"

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.

The mockery and insulting provided by Atheists is the church's comeuppance for their contempt for people. Silly pictures should be the least of their worries. As regards the child raping priests and the sick, twisted bishops who protected them, jail is too good for 'em.

BTW, there are plenty of arguments, not just for the non-existence of god, but reasons why we have outgrown religion. It's sooo last Century.

joseph brand

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.

How many times have I seen this argument spelled out for theist posters?

You'll notice too that the language has to be as simple as possible. Even when you mention Russell's teapot they still don't get it. Debating with a theist requires the 'patience of a saint'.

(I now have an image in my head, of a pigeon on a chess board)

Onesimus

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

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?



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

Can you prove you were born that way?

Penn

Onesimus wrote: »

Can you prove you were born that way?

Geography is proof. Until they reach an age where they learn about all religions and choose religion for themselves, children grow up believing in whatever religion their parents believe in. Born in a predominantly Christian country to Christian parents, you'll believe in the Christian God. Born in a predominantly Muslim country to Muslim parents, you'll believe in the Muslim God etc.

That means that belief is not something you are born with, but something learnt and instilled from family and society. Then when you reach an age where you can decide religion for yourself, the vast majority stick with the religion they were raised in because that's the religion they were always taught. Some people convert to other religions for various reasons, and some give up religion altogether.

It's not something you're born with because if Christian parents gave a child up for adoption and it was adopted by Jewish parents, the child would be raised Jewish. Your religion from birth is decided by external factors, not internal.