Atheist/Christian Discussions

[South Bound]

I also can't think of any forums where atheists and Christians can meet as equals. If there is anything that atheists and Christians should be discussing, it is a shame that there seems to be no neutral venue. As a Christian, I certainly wouldn't want to go to an atheist forum to be ridiculed by atheists who amuse themselves that way. As an atheist, I often feel that I must be very careful not to offend Christians when I go to their forums. Sometimes this makes it difficult to ask the questions or make the arguments that I would like to make. In fact, many Christian forums do not allow atheist members.

Maybe it doesn't matter, because what is there to say?
Atheist: "you Christians are silly".
Christian: "you atheists must have faith".
(Not much of a conversation really.)

Why don't you try going over to CARM, where atheists run the place and set an example for your fellow atheists if you think you can do better?

 

[FullEnglishBrekkie]

I also can't think of any forums where atheists and Christians can meet as equals. If there is anything that atheists and Christians should be discussing, it is a shame that there seems to be no neutral venue. As a Christian, I certainly wouldn't want to go to an atheist forum to be ridiculed by atheists who amuse themselves that way. As an atheist, I often feel that I must be very careful not to offend Christians when I go to their forums. Sometimes this makes it difficult to ask the questions or make the arguments that I would like to make. In fact, many Christian forums do not allow atheist members.

Maybe it doesn't matter, because what is there to say?
Atheist: "you Christians are silly".
Christian: "you atheists must have faith".
(Not much of a conversation really.)

Hi CloudyDay2

Are you Christian and atheist, then?

Be assured, I won't challenge or ridicule that - I will stick my neck out and say that I think that that position will become the mainstay of the Anglican church in the future, if it is to have a majority position and not disintegrate into countless sects.

 

[cloudyday2]

In general, what I've witnessed on the Internet is a lot of straw man arguments set up & discussed over & over again. The most fundamentalist approach to the Bible or Christianity gets argued about, & the other possibilities are unknown or ignored.

I think many atheists rightly object to fundamentalist ideas. I wish I could see more engagement with the other possibilities. Fundamentalist oriented Christians in the US are the loudest & most visible, unfortunately.

What I have seen is lots of threads about the latest outrageous Christian behavior from the news. Then everybody in the forum expresses disgust or makes witty comments. Usually there is at least one regular Christian member in every atheist forum who feels obligated to make a post now and then so he/she can experience some abuse for the sake of Christ. We've had some good discussion on the history of Christianity in atheist forums, and there are interesting philosophical and scientific discussions. Like you say, the religious discussions on atheist forums aren't very good. Mostly there aren't any Christians to argue for their beliefs due to the rudeness.

 

[cloudyday2]

Hi CloudyDay2

Are you Christian and atheist, then?

Be assured, I won't challenge or ridicule that - I will stick my neck out and say that I think that that position will become the mainstay of the Anglican church in the future, if it is to have a majority position and not disintegrate into countless sects.

No, I'm just an atheist who is interested in Christianity because I used to believe. Also I am surrounded by Christian family and coworkers. When I spend time on atheist forums, I find that I seem to absorb some of the group-think and feel hostile towards Christians. If I spend time on Christian forums, then I absorb some of their group-think which helps me feel more tolerant of Christians. The problem is that an atheist like me tends to step on toes at Christian forums.

 

[cloudyday2]

Why don't you try going over to CARM, where atheists run the place and set an example for your fellow atheists if you think you can do better?

I thought about CARM, but the discussions seemed to be philosophical or theological. I'm more interested in knowing how Christians live their lives, what made them believe in Christianity, and so forth.

 

[1watchman]

I think most true Christians ("born of the Spirit") will discuss things up to a point of impasse. Certainly if one does not believe in the Creator-God, a Christian might find nothing more to talk about, for "faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the Word of God" according to Scripture ---which is our only authority for the Faith. I do not spend much time with religious reasonings, but I pray I will always have a right spirit in discussing the reasonable issues.

 

[JGG]

Providing evidence to an atheist for Christian belief and providing evidence for it that they deem convincing are two very different things. The former is possible and reasonable but the latter often is not. The standard for evidence isn't whether or not the individual finds it convincing but whether or not the evidence can be shown to succeed logically, whether or not it has reasonable and effective explanatory power, and whether or not it is properly pertinent as evidence - to name just a few objective measures of evidence. Atheists, however, very often make themselves the standard for what passes as evidence. Their challenge is "convince me" when it should be "can I show that the evidence that is offered fails objectively"? I have yet to meet an atheist who can successfully do the latter.

The standard is "convince me". I'm the one who doesn't believe, that makes it my standard. Simply feeling like you have presented evidence to your liking is not a guarantee that you have done so to mine. Evidence doesn't have to fail, it may not simply reach the standard that I hold. Many Christians will tell me "the universe is very complex, therefore there must be a god.", and then feel like that's a slam dunk argument. That's not even approaching convincing. The universe is incredibly complex, but that alone is not going to convince me there's a god. If you don't understand why, then that's where the problem is.

Again, good Christian apologists don't engage atheists this way. Check out: www.reasonablefaith.org

No. That site is ridiculous and frankly, condescending. Not going back.

 

[aiki]

The standard is "convince me". I'm the one who doesn't believe, that makes it my standard.

No, it's not. Evidence is measured, not by what you like, by what suits your personal standard, but by objective measures some of which I offered in an earlier post. If the evidence fails according to those objective standards or measures, then it fails. But no evidence can be said to have failed simply because you don't like it. That's logically silly. Imagine a man convicted of murder. All of the evidence points to his culpability: He had motive, opportunity, and means, and he was seen committing the murder by multiple eye-witnesses. But, his mother, who loves her son dearly, responds to all the evidence by saying, "It just doesn't convince me. And if the evidence you've got doesn't persuade me, then it doesn't count. My son, therefore, is not a murderer." Such a response would be quite ridiculous and dismissed as the blind prejudice of a loving mother. But this is basically the same thing atheists do when they dismiss out-of-hand the Christian's evidence for their belief. "It doesn't convince me" is no more an argument for the failure of the evidence for the atheist than it is for the mother in my story. So, no, the standard is not "convince me" but, rather, does the evidence succeed or fail according to objective standards of evidence.

No. That site is ridiculous and frankly, condescending. Not going back.

One would expect this sort of response from an avowed and clearly antagonistic atheist.

Selah.

 

[cloudyday2]

No, it's not. Evidence is measured, not by what you like, by what suits your personal standard, but by objective measures some of which I offered in an earlier post. If the evidence fails according to those objective standards or measures, then it fails. But no evidence can be said to have failed simply because you don't like it. That's logically silly. Imagine a man convicted of murder. All of the evidence points to his culpability: He had motive, opportunity, and means, and he was seen committing the murder by multiple eye-witnesses. But, his mother, who loves her son dearly, responds to all the evidence by saying, "It just doesn't convince me. And if the evidence you've got doesn't persuade me, then it doesn't count. My son, therefore, is not a murderer." Such a response would be quite ridiculous and dismissed as the blind prejudice of a loving mother. But this is basically the same thing atheists do when they dismiss out-of-hand the Christian's evidence for their belief. "It doesn't convince me" is no more an argument for the failure of the evidence for the atheist than it is for the mother in my story. So, no, the standard is not "convince me" but, rather, does the evidence succeed or fail according to objective standards of evidence.

The moderator urged us to not debate general apologetics. I don't know if this is general apologetics, but it seems a bit that way to me.

BTW I agree with both of you depending on the goal of the debate. I just hate to see the thread closed in case somebody else wants to post something.

 

[aiki]

Well, I don't want to shut down your thread, so I'll cease my posting in it.

God bless.

 

[JGG]

No, it's not. Evidence is measured, not by what you like, by what suits your personal standard, but by objective measures some of which I offered in an earlier post. If the evidence fails according to those objective standards or measures, then it fails. But no evidence can be said to have failed simply because you don't like it. That's logically silly. Imagine a man convicted of murder. All of the evidence points to his culpability: He had motive, opportunity, and means, and he was seen committing the murder by multiple eye-witnesses. But, his mother, who loves her son dearly, responds to all the evidence by saying, "It just doesn't convince me. And if the evidence you've got doesn't persuade me, then it doesn't count. My son, therefore, is not a murderer." Such a response would be quite ridiculous and dismissed as the blind prejudice of a loving mother. But this is basically the same thing atheists do when they dismiss out-of-hand the Christian's evidence for their belief. "It doesn't convince me" is no more an argument for the failure of the evidence for the atheist than it is for the mother in my story. So, no, the standard is not "convince me" but, rather, does the evidence succeed or fail according to objective standards of evidence.

Remember though, you're not publishing a research paper. You are trying to convince me that something is true. My standard of what makes good evidence is clearly different from yours. You can't just say: "This is good evidence, you really are convinced, you really do believe." That doesn't work.

One would expect this sort of response from an avowed and clearly antagonistic atheist.

Which is the response I would expect from any Christian: You are an atheist? You must have some sort of defect.

My first and last time visiting that site I watched a video on how atheists don't actually exist, how atheists really believe but just want to sin more, and atheists are really Christians. Any website which presumes to read my mind without explaining how is not worth a second look. And this is the "enlightened" Christian website.

 

[cloudyday2]

Remember though, you're not publishing a research paper. You are trying to convince me that something is true. My standard of what makes good evidence is clearly different from yours. You can't just say: "This is good evidence, you really are convinced, you really do believe." That doesn't work.

Which is the response I would expect from any Christian: You are an atheist? You must have some sort of defect.

My first and last time visiting that site I watched a video on how atheists don't actually exist, how atheists really believe but just want to sin more, and atheists are really Christians. Any website which presumes to read my mind without explaining how is not worth a second look. And this is the "enlightened" Christian website.

Take a look at post #17 warning against general apologetics. I don't personally mind discussing these issues, but they seem a bit like apologetics to me, and that makes me concerned.

You guys have more experience with the CF rules than I do. I don't know if this type of discussion is apologetics or not, but I wanted to make you guys aware.

I think it's an interesting discussion, but I don't want to ignore the moderator's warning.

 

[cloudyday2]

Well, I don't want to shut down your thread, so I'll cease my posting in it.

Of course I don't mind you posting in the thread. The thread was closed for review already, so it's kind of on parole right now.

 

[samkadya]

Jerry Bergman: If you could complete one new random trial arrangement of these 206 bones every second "for every single second available in all of the estimated evolutionary view of astronomic time (about 10 to 20 billion years), using the most conservative estimate . . . . the chances that the correct general position will be obtained by random is less than once in 10 billion years." "For all practical purposes a zero possibility exists that the correct general position of only 206 parts could be obtained simultaneously by chance—and the average human has about 75 trillion cells! . . . This illustration indicates that the argument commonly used by evolutionists—'given enough time, anything is possible'—is wanting." (In Six Days, ed John Ashton, p 26, 27)

 

[cloudyday2]

Jerry Bergman: If you could complete one new random trial arrangement of these 206 bones every second "for every single second available in all of the estimated evolutionary view of astronomic time (about 10 to 20 billion years), using the most conservative estimate . . . . the chances that the correct general position will be obtained by random is less than once in 10 billion years." "For all practical purposes a zero possibility exists that the correct general position of only 206 parts could be obtained simultaneously by chance—and the average human has about 75 trillion cells! . . . This illustration indicates that the argument commonly used by evolutionists—'given enough time, anything is possible'—is wanting." (In Six Days, ed John Ashton, p 26, 27)

Apologetics is against the rules for Exploring Christianity. I wish CF had an apologetics forum where Christians and non-Christians could discuss these types of issues. A dedicated apologetics forums would allow Exploring Christianity to focus strictly on answering the earnest questions of prospective Christians. As it is, Exploring Christianity becomes cluttered with people like myself who are interested in talking to Christians about various topics but not particularly interested in becoming a Christian.

BTW If you post this argument in the CF debate forum for evolution ( http://www.christianforums.com/forums/creation-evolution.70/ ), then you should learn of the various counter arguments from atheists. (Apparently atheists are allowed to post in that forum judging by the activity there.)

 

[oi_antz]

Apologetics is against the rules for Exploring Christianity. I wish CF had an apologetics forum where Christians and non-Christians could discuss these types of issues. A dedicated apologetics forums would allow Exploring Christianity to focus strictly on answering the earnest questions of prospective Christians. As it is, Exploring Christianity becomes cluttered with people like myself who are interested in talking to Christians about various topics but not particularly interested in becoming a Christian.

BTW If you post this argument in the CF debate forum for evolution ( http://www.christianforums.com/forums/creation-evolution.70/ ), then you should learn of the various counter arguments from atheists. (Apparently atheists are allowed to post in that forum judging by the activity there.)

JGG knows he isn't meant to post in this area because of forum rules. You are the only non-Christian allowed on this thread. But I don't know why he's all uptight. If he doesn't want to believe, he is allowed to not believe. Anyone who wants to make him believe those things that he doesn't want to believe is wrong. I don't see that his particular beliefs are a menace to society, so why pick on him? His relationship to God isn't our concern anyway, it is for him and God to work out between them. That's what I think anyway. I don't really encounter the same hostile Christians that he does, but when I do, I notice they go quiet pretty quickly.

 

[cloudyday2]

JGG knows he isn't meant to post in this area because of forum rules. You are the only non-Christian allowed on this thread. But I don't know why he's all uptight. If he doesn't want to believe, he is allowed to not believe. Anyone who wants to make him believe those things that he doesn't want to believe is wrong. I don't see that his particular beliefs are a menace to society, so why pick on him? His relationship to God isn't our concern anyway, it is for him and God to work out between them. That's what I think anyway. I don't really encounter the same hostile Christians that he does, but when I do, I notice they go quiet pretty quickly.

It's a shame about the restrictions, because JGG had some interesting points to discuss. This thread was already closed for review, so I didn't want to appear to be scoffing at the instructions of the moderator now that is was reopened.

So which sub-forums at CF allow atheists to talk to Christians?
- Exploring Christianity has strict rules and is intended more for education of catechumens.
- World Religions is less strict but Christians seem to avoid the forum.
- Apparently atheists are allowed on the forum that debates science and creationism?
- Anywhere else?

 

[cloudyday2]

What seems to happen is that if I want to talk to Christians about an issue then I am tempted to start a thread on Exploring Christianity. The issue might be something like "Do you like Christian bumper stickers?". That's not really the purpose of Exploring Christianity, but I'm not sure where else I could discuss that issue with Christians. If I tried to discuss the issue on World Religions, then I would get opinions from other atheists which isn't what I wanted.

So I wish there was an "Ask a Christian a Question" sub-forum or something.

 

[MishSill]

What seems to happen is that if I want to talk to Christians about an issue then I am tempted to start a thread on Exploring Christianity. The issue might be something like "Do you like Christian bumper stickers?". That's not really the purpose of Exploring Christianity, but I'm not sure where else I could discuss that issue with Christians. If I tried to discuss the issue on World Religions, then I would get opinions from other atheists which isn't what I wanted.

So I wish there was an "Ask a Christian a Question" sub-forum or something.

Hi Cloudy,

I've read up on the rules for exploring christianity.

I do believe you are in the right place.

Why don't you try posting a specific question and we will answer you as best we can. That way you'll get to hear from a number of us. You could either start a new thread or continue with this one. It doesn't appear to have been shut down.

Blessings
Mish

 

[cloudyday2]

Hi Cloudy,

I've read up on the rules for exploring christianity.

I do believe you are in the right place.

Why don't you try posting a specific question and we will answer you as best we can. That way you'll get to hear from a number of us. You could either start a new thread or continue with this one. It doesn't appear to have been shut down.

Blessings
Mish

Thanks. I'm one of those people whose brain works backwards, so I can read instructions (for example to assemble something I bought) and they are usually not very clear to me. "Does 'left hand side' mean from the gizmo or from my perspective looking at the gizmo..." So I always worry when I try to assemble something or install something on my computer, because I have a talent for finding the wrong way of understanding instructions.

When I read the forum rules, I find that I'm not sure exactly what they mean. I used to think that I could bend rules here and there as long as I was not being a jerk and stirring up trouble. Maybe it is my imagination, but it seems like things have changed since I changed my label from "seeker" to "atheist". It seems like atheists are treated with more suspicion, but that may be only my imagination.

I guess I will ask questions and see how it goes.