Some sound reasoning for Christians: Atheist shouldn't use these arguments
Oct 23, 2013 08:02:21 #
I enjoy questions with people who are willing to have a charitable dialogue. I dont waste time with people who come by with poorly reasoned sound bites they picked up from their Dawkins/Hitchens/Harris trinity.
Also see a list of 300 disproofs of Gods existence (a parody on the common lines of reasoning often used by atheists).
Here is a list of arguments that non-theists shouldn't use and why. (These are actual arguments and statements made by non-theists)
Argument #1.
There are lots of denominations within Christianity and lots of religions with differing truth claims. There must be a solid majority with complete agreement for God to be real, so this is evidence that there is no God.
Answer:
And where did they arrive at this piece of spiritual truth? But if the truth is determined by a majority vote, then there must be a God. There are far more religious people than atheists. But the truth is the truth no matter how few agree, and a lie is a lie no matter how many agree. And if the majority rules with respect to truth claims then atheism is false, because most people believe there is a God.
Christianity claims to be the narrow road, anyway. Jesus didn't expect a majority to follow him. And the Bible addresses many false teachings and warns of others to come.
Also, as one atheist noted when trying to rally people to do raiding parties on theist sites, Atheists as we all know from bitter arguments on this site, embrace a pretty broad range of views. So by their logic they must have a false worldview, right?
Argument #2.
Why is it that religious people resort to imaginary answers (faith) built on the circular reasoning that the bible provides those answers? Does god exist? Yes, because the bible says so. Duh!.
Answer:
That is an actual quote. I got this a lot from the Dawkins blog raiding party. I call this the fallacy-within-a-fallacy argument. They make a straw man argument about us making a circular argument.
I never made that claim about the Bible other than noting that the Bible does claim 3,000 times to speak for God and that it is a sort of necessary condition to be considered the word of God. We have lots of reasons to believe it is the word of God, but we dont need circular reasoning for it.
He also uses a non-Biblical definition of faith. We have faith in something, and it isnt a blind faith or a faith in spite of the evidence.
Argument #3.
Arguing from incredulity: You just have a made-up invisible friend in the sky, etc., etc. Do you probably believe in santa Claus and the Easter Bunny?
This charming ad hominem attack works both ways. I submit that A is far more incredible to believe than B, and could have expanded on A for days.
A. The universe was created from nothing without a cause and organized itself into the spectacular level of complexity we see today, including life being created from non-life.
B. The universe was created by an eternally existent God.
We have lots of evidence for the existence of God: Cosmological (first cause), teleological (design), morality, logic, the physical resurrection of Jesus, etc. If atheists dont find that compelling, then so be it.
Im on the Great Commission, not the paid commission. But to insist that we have no evidence is uncharitable in the extreme and makes reasoned dialogue virtually impossible.
Argument #4.
Arguments from ridicule (also see #3).
Answer:
You can sprinkle in some ridicule to make an argument more entertaining, but using it as your primary argument is weak and fallacious. Having visited quite a few atheist websites this seems to be their main line of reasoning.
Argument #5.
As a Christian, you deny all gods but one. As an atheist, I deny all gods. Were practically the same.
Answer:
This is a cute but horribly illogical argument. Saying there is no God isn't a little different than saying there is one God, it is the opposite. Thats like saying, You deny all other women as your wives except one, so youre practically the same as a single person.
Argument #6.
You dont have empirical evidence for ____ (God, the resurrection, etc.).
Answer:
To quote Bubba: Can one prove that only empirical evidence is trustworthy? Better yet, can one prove this by using only empirical evidence?
The answers, of course, are no and no.
The argument is a heads we win, tails you lose trick. They say that you can only consider natural causes for the creation of the universe, and since they have nothing to test then there could not have been any supernatural cause, right?
Argument #7.
Parents shouldn't be allowed to indoctrinate / brainwash their children with religious beliefs.
The brainwashing must not be working, because so many people leave the church. And why isn't it brainwashing when the schools do it with evolution and their sickening strategies to take away the innocence of young children?
I find it interesting that with such low church attendance, general Biblical illiteracy and the monopoly that materialism has in public education that most people still dont buy the macro-evolution lie. No wonder evolutionists are so frustrated!
Some parents may go overboard with the fear of Hell thing. But parents have rights, and more importantly, strong warnings are only inappropriate if the consequence in question is not true.
Argument #8.
The Bible teaches _____ [fill in hopelessly (and deliberately?) wrong interpretation].
Answer:
Please learn more about the Bible and the faith you are trying to criticize. Straw-man arguments are unproductive. This is perhaps the most common error I come across.
Argument #9.
Christians disagree on what the Bible teaches (or Muslims disagree on the Koran, etc.) so there cant be one right answer.
Answer:
Just because a book is capable of being misunderstood doesn't mean it is incapable of being understood. Disagreements in science dont mean everyone must be wrong.
If you have actually studied the Bible youll note that it addresses many false teachings and warns that there will always be false teachers. So the concept that people disagree on what the Bible says isn't exactly newsworthy. It is Biblical, in fact.
Argument #10.
Why do religious people keep quoting bits out of a book written long ago by stone aged (or bronze aged) and ignorant men?
Answer:
The men who wrote the Bible were quite intelligent. The Apostle Paul, for example, was well educated, articulate and a clear thinker.
The age of the book is completely irrelevant, of course. If God wrote it the message would be timeless. And of course, if it were written last week theyd complain that it was too late.
The complaint that our responses are old is also invalid. The objections are old as well. The funny thing is that over the last 2,000 years brilliant theists have wrestled with the same questions the New Atheists have, except with more clarity and thoughtfulness.
Argument #11.
Why do religious people not understand the scientific and philosophical arguments against the existence of god which clearly refute its existence?
Answer:
This commenter didn't share any of those arguments or refer to any sources, so it is difficult to answer even if the objection didn't have a flawed premise (it is basically a have you stopped beating your wife type of question that anyone on any side of an issues could use).
Argument #12.
I cant understand or conceive of why God would set things up this way, so He must not exist.
Answer:
We call this creating God in your own image. See the 2nd Commandment.
If you create your own universe with working DNA and such, you can make your own rules. But whether you like it or not you play by Gods rules in this universe and youll have to give an account for your life. Ignorance is not an excuse.
Argument #13.
Some people who call themselves Christians do and/or say stupid things, so Christianity is false.
Answer:
That doesn't disprove Christianity any more than atheists doing and saying stupid things proves that there is a God.
In fact, Christians saying and doing stupid things probably bothers us more than it does atheists. Believe it or not, we have some common ground there.
Argument #14.
Religion poisons everything! What about the Crusades, the Inquisition, etc.?!
Answer:
That is unproductive hyperbole. Religion has done many great things helping the poor, building hospitals and schools, great art, etc.
You dont judge an ideology based on the actions of those who violate its tenets.
The Salem Witch trials killed 18 people. The Inquisition killed about 2,000. That is 2,018 too many, to be sure, but keep in mind two things: The perpetrators did the opposite of what Jesus commanded and 2,018 murders was a slow afternoon for atheists like Stalin and Mao.
Observation:
I have noted that these critics focus almost exclusively on Christianity. When you point this out to them they squirm and say it is the one they are most familiar with. But with the growth of radical Islam and the perversions of the caste system in India youd think theyd spread their evangelical atheism out a bit.
Argument #15.
Religion gets in the way of scientific progress.
Answer:
That is simply untrue. The Galileo story that people usually refer to has many mythical elements. And how many people can cite an example besides Galileo? And who knows, maybe Einsteins presupposition of a static universe caused his error with the cosmological constant. After all, an expanding universe certainly gives more support to a theist model than a static one.
Argument #16.
You dont use reason and we do.
Answer:
That is just patently false. Atheists just dont like the reasons. Christianity in particular encourages and applauds the use of reason. Countless great thinkers and scientists were Bible-believing Christians.
Closing thoughts: As Edgar pointed out so well, even if every religion is completely false and atheism is true, then naturalism is to blame. So it is irrational to get mad at religion or religious people. Were just doing what our genes tell us to.
And, of course, you would have absolutely nothing to be proud about. You havent accomplished anything and havent generated any brilliant or meaningful ideas. You are just a bag of chemicals that thinks you have. Congratulations! You have no reason for bitterness or grandstanding.
All fun aside, those who can stay away from time-wasting arguments and who want to engage in an actual dialogue are welcome. Otherwise, save your keystrokes.
Thanks to my friend Neil for this info...
http://networkedblogs.com/QlaCy
Also see a list of 300 disproofs of Gods existence (a parody on the common lines of reasoning often used by atheists).
Here is a list of arguments that non-theists shouldn't use and why. (These are actual arguments and statements made by non-theists)
Argument #1.
There are lots of denominations within Christianity and lots of religions with differing truth claims. There must be a solid majority with complete agreement for God to be real, so this is evidence that there is no God.
Answer:
And where did they arrive at this piece of spiritual truth? But if the truth is determined by a majority vote, then there must be a God. There are far more religious people than atheists. But the truth is the truth no matter how few agree, and a lie is a lie no matter how many agree. And if the majority rules with respect to truth claims then atheism is false, because most people believe there is a God.
Christianity claims to be the narrow road, anyway. Jesus didn't expect a majority to follow him. And the Bible addresses many false teachings and warns of others to come.
Also, as one atheist noted when trying to rally people to do raiding parties on theist sites, Atheists as we all know from bitter arguments on this site, embrace a pretty broad range of views. So by their logic they must have a false worldview, right?
Argument #2.
Why is it that religious people resort to imaginary answers (faith) built on the circular reasoning that the bible provides those answers? Does god exist? Yes, because the bible says so. Duh!.
Answer:
That is an actual quote. I got this a lot from the Dawkins blog raiding party. I call this the fallacy-within-a-fallacy argument. They make a straw man argument about us making a circular argument.
I never made that claim about the Bible other than noting that the Bible does claim 3,000 times to speak for God and that it is a sort of necessary condition to be considered the word of God. We have lots of reasons to believe it is the word of God, but we dont need circular reasoning for it.
He also uses a non-Biblical definition of faith. We have faith in something, and it isnt a blind faith or a faith in spite of the evidence.
Argument #3.
Arguing from incredulity: You just have a made-up invisible friend in the sky, etc., etc. Do you probably believe in santa Claus and the Easter Bunny?
This charming ad hominem attack works both ways. I submit that A is far more incredible to believe than B, and could have expanded on A for days.
A. The universe was created from nothing without a cause and organized itself into the spectacular level of complexity we see today, including life being created from non-life.
B. The universe was created by an eternally existent God.
We have lots of evidence for the existence of God: Cosmological (first cause), teleological (design), morality, logic, the physical resurrection of Jesus, etc. If atheists dont find that compelling, then so be it.
Im on the Great Commission, not the paid commission. But to insist that we have no evidence is uncharitable in the extreme and makes reasoned dialogue virtually impossible.
Argument #4.
Arguments from ridicule (also see #3).
Answer:
You can sprinkle in some ridicule to make an argument more entertaining, but using it as your primary argument is weak and fallacious. Having visited quite a few atheist websites this seems to be their main line of reasoning.
Argument #5.
As a Christian, you deny all gods but one. As an atheist, I deny all gods. Were practically the same.
Answer:
This is a cute but horribly illogical argument. Saying there is no God isn't a little different than saying there is one God, it is the opposite. Thats like saying, You deny all other women as your wives except one, so youre practically the same as a single person.
Argument #6.
You dont have empirical evidence for ____ (God, the resurrection, etc.).
Answer:
To quote Bubba: Can one prove that only empirical evidence is trustworthy? Better yet, can one prove this by using only empirical evidence?
The answers, of course, are no and no.
The argument is a heads we win, tails you lose trick. They say that you can only consider natural causes for the creation of the universe, and since they have nothing to test then there could not have been any supernatural cause, right?
Argument #7.
Parents shouldn't be allowed to indoctrinate / brainwash their children with religious beliefs.
The brainwashing must not be working, because so many people leave the church. And why isn't it brainwashing when the schools do it with evolution and their sickening strategies to take away the innocence of young children?
I find it interesting that with such low church attendance, general Biblical illiteracy and the monopoly that materialism has in public education that most people still dont buy the macro-evolution lie. No wonder evolutionists are so frustrated!
Some parents may go overboard with the fear of Hell thing. But parents have rights, and more importantly, strong warnings are only inappropriate if the consequence in question is not true.
Argument #8.
The Bible teaches _____ [fill in hopelessly (and deliberately?) wrong interpretation].
Answer:
Please learn more about the Bible and the faith you are trying to criticize. Straw-man arguments are unproductive. This is perhaps the most common error I come across.
Argument #9.
Christians disagree on what the Bible teaches (or Muslims disagree on the Koran, etc.) so there cant be one right answer.
Answer:
Just because a book is capable of being misunderstood doesn't mean it is incapable of being understood. Disagreements in science dont mean everyone must be wrong.
If you have actually studied the Bible youll note that it addresses many false teachings and warns that there will always be false teachers. So the concept that people disagree on what the Bible says isn't exactly newsworthy. It is Biblical, in fact.
Argument #10.
Why do religious people keep quoting bits out of a book written long ago by stone aged (or bronze aged) and ignorant men?
Answer:
The men who wrote the Bible were quite intelligent. The Apostle Paul, for example, was well educated, articulate and a clear thinker.
The age of the book is completely irrelevant, of course. If God wrote it the message would be timeless. And of course, if it were written last week theyd complain that it was too late.
The complaint that our responses are old is also invalid. The objections are old as well. The funny thing is that over the last 2,000 years brilliant theists have wrestled with the same questions the New Atheists have, except with more clarity and thoughtfulness.
Argument #11.
Why do religious people not understand the scientific and philosophical arguments against the existence of god which clearly refute its existence?
Answer:
This commenter didn't share any of those arguments or refer to any sources, so it is difficult to answer even if the objection didn't have a flawed premise (it is basically a have you stopped beating your wife type of question that anyone on any side of an issues could use).
Argument #12.
I cant understand or conceive of why God would set things up this way, so He must not exist.
Answer:
We call this creating God in your own image. See the 2nd Commandment.
If you create your own universe with working DNA and such, you can make your own rules. But whether you like it or not you play by Gods rules in this universe and youll have to give an account for your life. Ignorance is not an excuse.
Argument #13.
Some people who call themselves Christians do and/or say stupid things, so Christianity is false.
Answer:
That doesn't disprove Christianity any more than atheists doing and saying stupid things proves that there is a God.
In fact, Christians saying and doing stupid things probably bothers us more than it does atheists. Believe it or not, we have some common ground there.
Argument #14.
Religion poisons everything! What about the Crusades, the Inquisition, etc.?!
Answer:
That is unproductive hyperbole. Religion has done many great things helping the poor, building hospitals and schools, great art, etc.
You dont judge an ideology based on the actions of those who violate its tenets.
The Salem Witch trials killed 18 people. The Inquisition killed about 2,000. That is 2,018 too many, to be sure, but keep in mind two things: The perpetrators did the opposite of what Jesus commanded and 2,018 murders was a slow afternoon for atheists like Stalin and Mao.
Observation:
I have noted that these critics focus almost exclusively on Christianity. When you point this out to them they squirm and say it is the one they are most familiar with. But with the growth of radical Islam and the perversions of the caste system in India youd think theyd spread their evangelical atheism out a bit.
Argument #15.
Religion gets in the way of scientific progress.
Answer:
That is simply untrue. The Galileo story that people usually refer to has many mythical elements. And how many people can cite an example besides Galileo? And who knows, maybe Einsteins presupposition of a static universe caused his error with the cosmological constant. After all, an expanding universe certainly gives more support to a theist model than a static one.
Argument #16.
You dont use reason and we do.
Answer:
That is just patently false. Atheists just dont like the reasons. Christianity in particular encourages and applauds the use of reason. Countless great thinkers and scientists were Bible-believing Christians.
Closing thoughts: As Edgar pointed out so well, even if every religion is completely false and atheism is true, then naturalism is to blame. So it is irrational to get mad at religion or religious people. Were just doing what our genes tell us to.
And, of course, you would have absolutely nothing to be proud about. You havent accomplished anything and havent generated any brilliant or meaningful ideas. You are just a bag of chemicals that thinks you have. Congratulations! You have no reason for bitterness or grandstanding.
All fun aside, those who can stay away from time-wasting arguments and who want to engage in an actual dialogue are welcome. Otherwise, save your keystrokes.
Thanks to my friend Neil for this info...
http://networkedblogs.com/QlaCy
Oct 23, 2013 18:32:51 #
Good things to know.
I'm also glad there are people like Ravi Zacharias who have the special ministry of dealing with non-believers; something I could never do on his academic level.
http://www.rzim.org/
I'm also glad there are people like Ravi Zacharias who have the special ministry of dealing with non-believers; something I could never do on his academic level.
http://www.rzim.org/
Nov 15, 2013 09:45:50 #
Very interesting. It is so hard to explain to unbelievers how great our God is.
Nov 20, 2013 08:28:21 #
I don't know any atheist who use the arguments you have listed here and I know quite a few.
Nov 20, 2013 08:51:50 #
Dave Johnson wrote:
I don't know any atheist who use the arguments you have listed here and I know quite a few.
I certainly do...I guess we hang out with different Atheists... :)
Even Dawkins has voiced more than one of these...
Nov 20, 2013 09:16:08 #
The problem with the "List of Arguments" above is that they are intrinsically flawed as stated. For instance argument number one. No atheist would use that argument as atheists themselves are in the minority (at least in this country). Also, complete agreement on a subject is not a requirement for it to be true. Practitioners of the various sciences don't agree completely on every detail but do agree on the basic tenants of evolution, geology and physics among others. rpavich I will check this thread later today but I have to go to work now. I hope it doesn't turn into one of those 25 page pissing contests.
Nov 21, 2013 18:48:25 #
Rpavich, I would like to address your arguments if I may,
1-The problem with the "List of Arguments" above is that they are intrinsically flawed as stated. For instance argument number one. No atheist would use that argument as atheists themselves are in the minority (at least in this country). Also, complete agreement on a subject is not a requirement for it to be true. Practitioners of the various sciences don't agree completely on every detail but do agree on the basic tenants of evolution, geology and physics among others.
Also Atheism is not a world view, though it certainly infuences it, neither is it a religion as some claim. Atheists simply do not believe in god. Beyond that an atheist might be a Humanist, or even a Buddhist.
2-Atheists dont hold the bible to be accurate, historic and certainly not moral so naturally anything written there is viewed with skepticism. The argument you mention here goes something like this: If I handed you a scripture that deified Zeus would you worship him, of course you wouldnt because you dont believe in Zeus. I could say things like you just need to believe and Zeus will reveal himself to you. How could you say different? Can you prove Zeus doesnt exist? Something atheists are often asked to do.
3-Or perhaps there is a C option. Just because our understanding of the origins of the universe are incomplete at this time does not automatically mean Well, god did it. I must stress here the big bang theory that you reference here is not just a made up story designed to rival Christianity. It is a hypothesis based on our understanding of physics and developed by much smarter men than me.
You claim to have evidence but if all of your evidence comes from the bible then Im afraid youll come up short as the bible is a flawed document. The design argument is patently false. The resurrection of Jesus cant be shown to exist outside of the bible. I do have to respectfully say that I really dont find your evidence compelling
4-It is an unfortunate fact that some people are more interested in drama that they are in forming a tenable philosophical stance. I will not however that this behavior is not limited to atheists.
5-Ive heard this articulated more like this: As a Christian you have an atheistic view of other gods. I prefer not to use phrases like this as they can lead to confusion. Anyone saying what you have written has not completely thought it through.
6-This is kind of getting to the crux of the problem. Yes rpavich, I need empirical evidence. It is the best most consistent source of truth in our universe. There is a reason it is the most reliable evidence in a court of law.
7-Parents have and will teach their children about their beliefs until the end of time. We can argue the truth of our beliefs but parental rights wont go away any time in this millennia.
8- The truth is that there are many things that are either tolerated or endorsed by the bible. Please dont trot out the context argument. Some of the things endorsed by the bible are not good things. It just happens to be the truth.
9- I dont believe in any of the deitys but disagreement among theists is not a valid argument religion.
10-The King James bible was assembled in the early 17th century from other books and scrolls. It was voted on, assembled, and declared the word of god. I admit, Im skeptical.
11-Ive heard this statement made before but only after a lengthy discussion about specific topics.
12-This isnt even an argument, again no specifics.
13-Again, not even an argument, the worst kind of lazy reasoning. I dont know anyone who would say this. There are atheists who do stupid things too.
14-It can poison everything. More likely, politics in the guise of religion and religion used as a tool to further a political or personal agenda poisons everything. You mention two incidents but there were many more, also were not just talking about Christianity.
Atheists argue that religion is unnecessary for good works. All of the good that is done in the name of religion could be done without it.
The truth is that most of the atheists in this county are more familiar with Christianity. That doesnt mean that we give Islam a pass, Bill Maher is especially hard on them.
15-Religion has gotten in the way of science. That is a fact. At one time the Mesopotamian region was the seat of the worlds knowledge, now its the seat of conflict and strife, due in no small part to Islam. Flat world, erroneous medical procedures, not bathing, and a hundred other traditions all due to religious influence.
Now days its not as prevalent but even now weve got guys like W inhibiting stem cell research.
16-I would hope we all use reason butt it is precisely here that we differ. In all of your life you use reason or your best guess in the decisions of your life. When you buy a car you do your research. You buy a couch you go to the store and check them out. Send your child to college; you do your due diligence. When it comes to what you consider to be the most important decision of your life you leave that to faith. You cant see him, cant talk to him, cant feel him, cant hear him but youve got to just believe. I dont think that is a tenable position to take.
There you go rpavich, a reasoned response to your post. I look forward to your response.
1-The problem with the "List of Arguments" above is that they are intrinsically flawed as stated. For instance argument number one. No atheist would use that argument as atheists themselves are in the minority (at least in this country). Also, complete agreement on a subject is not a requirement for it to be true. Practitioners of the various sciences don't agree completely on every detail but do agree on the basic tenants of evolution, geology and physics among others.
Also Atheism is not a world view, though it certainly infuences it, neither is it a religion as some claim. Atheists simply do not believe in god. Beyond that an atheist might be a Humanist, or even a Buddhist.
2-Atheists dont hold the bible to be accurate, historic and certainly not moral so naturally anything written there is viewed with skepticism. The argument you mention here goes something like this: If I handed you a scripture that deified Zeus would you worship him, of course you wouldnt because you dont believe in Zeus. I could say things like you just need to believe and Zeus will reveal himself to you. How could you say different? Can you prove Zeus doesnt exist? Something atheists are often asked to do.
3-Or perhaps there is a C option. Just because our understanding of the origins of the universe are incomplete at this time does not automatically mean Well, god did it. I must stress here the big bang theory that you reference here is not just a made up story designed to rival Christianity. It is a hypothesis based on our understanding of physics and developed by much smarter men than me.
You claim to have evidence but if all of your evidence comes from the bible then Im afraid youll come up short as the bible is a flawed document. The design argument is patently false. The resurrection of Jesus cant be shown to exist outside of the bible. I do have to respectfully say that I really dont find your evidence compelling
4-It is an unfortunate fact that some people are more interested in drama that they are in forming a tenable philosophical stance. I will not however that this behavior is not limited to atheists.
5-Ive heard this articulated more like this: As a Christian you have an atheistic view of other gods. I prefer not to use phrases like this as they can lead to confusion. Anyone saying what you have written has not completely thought it through.
6-This is kind of getting to the crux of the problem. Yes rpavich, I need empirical evidence. It is the best most consistent source of truth in our universe. There is a reason it is the most reliable evidence in a court of law.
7-Parents have and will teach their children about their beliefs until the end of time. We can argue the truth of our beliefs but parental rights wont go away any time in this millennia.
8- The truth is that there are many things that are either tolerated or endorsed by the bible. Please dont trot out the context argument. Some of the things endorsed by the bible are not good things. It just happens to be the truth.
9- I dont believe in any of the deitys but disagreement among theists is not a valid argument religion.
10-The King James bible was assembled in the early 17th century from other books and scrolls. It was voted on, assembled, and declared the word of god. I admit, Im skeptical.
11-Ive heard this statement made before but only after a lengthy discussion about specific topics.
12-This isnt even an argument, again no specifics.
13-Again, not even an argument, the worst kind of lazy reasoning. I dont know anyone who would say this. There are atheists who do stupid things too.
14-It can poison everything. More likely, politics in the guise of religion and religion used as a tool to further a political or personal agenda poisons everything. You mention two incidents but there were many more, also were not just talking about Christianity.
Atheists argue that religion is unnecessary for good works. All of the good that is done in the name of religion could be done without it.
The truth is that most of the atheists in this county are more familiar with Christianity. That doesnt mean that we give Islam a pass, Bill Maher is especially hard on them.
15-Religion has gotten in the way of science. That is a fact. At one time the Mesopotamian region was the seat of the worlds knowledge, now its the seat of conflict and strife, due in no small part to Islam. Flat world, erroneous medical procedures, not bathing, and a hundred other traditions all due to religious influence.
Now days its not as prevalent but even now weve got guys like W inhibiting stem cell research.
16-I would hope we all use reason butt it is precisely here that we differ. In all of your life you use reason or your best guess in the decisions of your life. When you buy a car you do your research. You buy a couch you go to the store and check them out. Send your child to college; you do your due diligence. When it comes to what you consider to be the most important decision of your life you leave that to faith. You cant see him, cant talk to him, cant feel him, cant hear him but youve got to just believe. I dont think that is a tenable position to take.
There you go rpavich, a reasoned response to your post. I look forward to your response.
Nov 28, 2013 10:29:55 #
Dave Johnson wrote:
Rpavich, I would like to address your arguments if I may,
You may.
Quote:
1-The problem with the "List of Arguments" above is that they are intrinsically flawed as stated. For instance argument number one. No atheist would use that argument as atheists themselves are in the minority (at least in this country). Also, complete agreement on a subject is not a requirement for it to be true. Practitioners of the various sciences don't agree completely on every detail but do agree on the basic tenants of evolution, geology and physics among others.
1-The problem with the "List of Arguments" above is that they are intrinsically flawed as stated. For instance argument number one. No atheist would use that argument as atheists themselves are in the minority (at least in this country). Also, complete agreement on a subject is not a requirement for it to be true. Practitioners of the various sciences don't agree completely on every detail but do agree on the basic tenants of evolution, geology and physics among others.
Well..as I said above, they do use this argument though they state it differently; I've responded to it 100 times at least.
You may not have done so...you may not even know any Atheists that have done so but I have over and over though it's generally stated a bit differently.
Quote:
Also Atheism is not a world view, though it certainly infuences it, neither is it a religion as some claim. Atheists simply do not believe in god. Beyond that an atheist might be a Humanist, or even a Buddhist.
Also Atheism is not a world view, though it certainly infuences it, neither is it a religion as some claim. Atheists simply do not believe in god. Beyond that an atheist might be a Humanist, or even a Buddhist.
Methinks you don't know the definition of "worldview."
Your "worldview" is how you see everything, your most base assumptions about "how things are" or "reality" all interconnected are your worldview.
Atheism most certainly is one worldview, though as you pointed out...many people can't agree on the details.
Quote:
2-Atheists dont hold the bible to be accurate, historic and certainly not moral so naturally anything written there is viewed with skepticism.
2-Atheists dont hold the bible to be accurate, historic and certainly not moral so naturally anything written there is viewed with skepticism.
No argument there.
Quote:
The argument you mention here goes something like this: If I handed you a scripture that deified Zeus would you worship him, of course you wouldnt because you dont believe in Zeus. I could say things like you just need to believe and Zeus will reveal himself to you. How could you say different? Can you prove Zeus doesnt exist? Something atheists are often asked to do.
The argument you mention here goes something like this: If I handed you a scripture that deified Zeus would you worship him, of course you wouldnt because you dont believe in Zeus. I could say things like you just need to believe and Zeus will reveal himself to you. How could you say different? Can you prove Zeus doesnt exist? Something atheists are often asked to do.
Not sure what this has to do with anything...but I think you misunderstood the whole point. What some say is a straw man argument, I've heard it over and over and over.
Quote:
3-Or perhaps there is a C option. Just because our understanding of the origins of the universe are incomplete at this time does not automatically mean Well, god did it. I must stress here the big bang theory that you reference here is not just a made up story designed to rival Christianity.
3-Or perhaps there is a C option. Just because our understanding of the origins of the universe are incomplete at this time does not automatically mean Well, god did it. I must stress here the big bang theory that you reference here is not just a made up story designed to rival Christianity.
And no Christian says that either...that's another straw man argument..
I have to say, Dave...you aren't actually responding to the actual points at all.
I'm not sure I'll waste my time much further on this...it takes 10X the amount of typing to explain how you missed the point than it does to type the original point.
Quote:
br br It is a hypothesis based on our understand... (show quote)
No...there won't be a response...It's not worth it...you missed too many points and kitchen-sinked- me..
If you'd like to discuss YOUR worldview vs Christianity, I'm open to that. You already have my email address.
This thread itself is for Christians who get intimidated by these lame arguments, and yes...they are used over and over and over again...so I won't be responding here.
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.