Atheists, What's the point?

[Subduction Zone]

How many Christians forget the null hypothesis and the fact that the burden of proof is upon them?

 

[Dave Ellis]

Really? He was a truly amazing man:



The Incredible Kim Jong-il and his Amazing Achievements - Telegraph


Of course we don't want to talk about what happened if you did not worship him properly.

Man, it's a shame he died.... a fight between Kim Jong Il and Chuck Norris would have been epic.

 

[RainbowDashIsBestPony]

And there is NO NADA ZIP 0 evidence against Christianity or the supernatural so your lying.

There is NO NADA ZIP 0 evidence against Islam. Praise Allah!

 

[Dave Ellis]

There is NO NADA ZIP 0 evidence against Islam. Praise Allah!

The main thing to remember as well, is that there is NO NADA ZIP 0 evidence in favour of Christianity or the Supernatural either.

Even with a complete lack of evidence against, you still can't assert a truth claim until you have sufficient evidence for your actual claim.

Now of course, there's plenty of evidence against Christianity, however my bet is the Christians on this thread will simply dishonestly evade it like usual.

 

[seeking Christ]

You can't handle the truth! (Smacking yourself on the forehead is a good remedy for that though - apparently)

 

[seeking Christ]

Would you believe that a person existed if the earliest records of them came from several decades after the time they are said to have died? Especially when the claims being made are as extraordinary as those being made of Jesus?

I know I wouldn't.

Unbelievable the way you dismiss everything academia has to say when it doesn't suit you.

Creationist strategy. You just forfeited your right to complain when they employ it.

 

[seeking Christ]

The main thing to remember as well, is that there is NO NADA ZIP 0 evidence in favour of Christianity or the Supernatural either.

Even with a complete lack of evidence against, you still can't assert a truth claim until you have sufficient evidence for your actual claim.

Now of course, there's plenty of evidence against Christianity, however my bet is the Christians on this thread will simply dishonestly evade it like usual.

In what Universe?

 

[RainbowDashIsBestPony]

Unbelievable the way you dismiss everything academia has to say when it doesn't suit you.

Creationist strategy. You just forfeited your right to complain when they employ it.

How is what he did a creationist strategy?

 

[Tnmusicman]

TN, sort out your quote tags, please. Use the

and the end of a quoted section and a

at the beginning of the next one.

I'm on a cell phone not a computer. I don't have the same options on my phone as computer users do . Sorry if this is an issue.

 

[pgp_protector]

I'm on a cell phone not a computer. I don't have the same options on my phone as computer users do . Sorry if this is an issue.

What program are you using on the phone
Mine allows full editing of text while on the phone.

 

[Tnmusicman]

What program are you using on the phone
Mine allows full editing of text while on the phone.

On mine if you hit quote it displays the whole post. If I hit MQ and try to highlight a certain comment and go to reply it will come up blank.

 

[Tnmusicman]

What program are you using on the phone
Mine allows full editing of text while on the phone.

When I go to FAQ section it doesn't show the icons in the replying to comments section nor does my phone display the faith icons in the FAQ section. Just a question mark. Your assistance is appreciated.

 

[Hovind]

Hmmm I'm not sure maybe because the apologetics section is for Christians only.And there is NO NADA ZIP 0 evidence against Christianity or the supernatural so your lying.

and most atheists on here were Christians when they joined.

And why exactly do you want people to be atheists

What is your evidence of the supernatural? Very interested in hearing this.

 

[mathetes123]

If you're an atheist, that is, of course, your right. Whether you just don't like the Abrahamic God, or you think the idea of a creator is bunk, that's all well and good. I'm convinced that God is real. Moreover, I'm convinced that Jesus was a zombie and that he was God Incarnate. I've given my beliefs a great deal of examination and went through a period where I was an atheist. Most atheists I know have no problem with that.

I do know some atheists, though, and I know a lot of atheists on this forum, who have a problem with blind faith in God. I have to ask, why? Why would you try to 'convert' someone to atheism? I'm not trying to shut you up, I'm genuinely curious. From a theistic standpoint, conversion makes sense, because there is a benefit to those who know and believe the truth, and therefore a moral imperative on the part of believers to spread it. What does an atheist get out of spreading atheism?

Religion helps many people get through their daily struggles. It helps those who would otherwise give in to existentialism or despair find purpose. It comforts the grieving in a way that pure science tends not to.

What possible purpose is there for convincing someone God isn't real?
Even if you were correct (which I don't believe, but let's pretend), at best you would be like a playground bully who tells another kid that his imaginary friend isn't real. Being correct doesn't make that a good thing to do, and it certainly doesn't make it a nice thing to do. Moreover, convincing someone God isn't real doesn't have any of the benefits of dissuading someone from believing in an imaginary friend. You can't function in society while talking about your imaginary friend; you can while talking about God. Eventually, at some early point in life, a schoolboy will learn that his friend is not real, and you could make the argument that the earlier, the better. That is not true of religion. It is not inevitable, or even particularly likely, that a given man will "grow out of" his religion.

And why should he? As I said before, it gives one solace and comfort. Why try to take that away from him?

EDIT: No, it wasn't a good post. It was a crappy post. I was tired, and existential, and wasn't thinking straight. Un-rep it, please.

John 3:16-21
For God So Loved the World
“For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him. Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God. And this is the judgment: the light has come into the world, and people loved the darkness rather than the light because their works were evil. For everyone who does wicked things hates the light and does not come to the light, lest his works should be exposed. But whoever does what is true comes to the light, so that it may be clearly seen that his works have been carried out in God.”

 

[Tnmusicman]

How many Christians forget the null hypothesis and the fact that the burden of proof is upon them?

No, we don't forget that SubZone. If we do, there are plenty to remind us. Of course, I'm also sure the strong atheists know they have a burden of proof as well.

 

[muichimotsu]

No, we don't forget that SubZone. If we do, there are plenty to remind us. Of course, I'm also sure the strong atheists know they have a burden of proof as well.

There isn't a burden of proof if you aren't making a claim about positive existence or a negative claim that is sweeping in nature. I think the strong atheist you're imagining doesn't exist in that they are making a claim of gnosis, spiritual knowledge, or equivalent scale, that there is no such thing as God in the entire known and unknown universe.

Most "strong" atheists say it's merely highly improbable and unlikely, not that it is impossible, though there are philosophical arguments that could supplant that claim, within reason. But this doesn't preclude something we might call "God" existing in the universe, but not meeting the standards of common theists.

 

[football5680]

To be an atheist requires an indefinitely greater measure of faith than to receive all the great truths which atheism would deny. - Joseph Addison[FONT='Corbel','sans-serif'][/FONT]

 

[Gadarene]

To be an atheist requires an indefinitely greater measure of faith than to receive all the great truths which atheism would deny. - Joseph Addison

Not really, but thanks for playing.

 

[muichimotsu]

To be an atheist requires an indefinitely greater measure of faith than to receive all the great truths which atheism would deny. - Joseph Addison[FONT='Corbel','sans-serif'][/FONT]

Problem is this assumes that atheism has a problem with truth, which is hardly the case. And also presupposes that faith in the sense of belief without evidence or even belief in spite of evidence to the contrary is something ideal or a point of comparison between systems to show which is superior by who has more or less. Though if Christianity's own principle about faith is right, wouldn't that still make atheists right if this were true, since Jesus admired those who have faith and have not seen?

 

[RainbowDashIsBestPony]

Problem is this assumes that atheism has a problem with truth, which is hardly the case. And also presupposes that faith in the sense of belief without evidence or even belief in spite of evidence to the contrary is something ideal or a point of comparison between systems to show which is superior by who has more or less. Though if Christianity's own principle about faith is right, wouldn't that still make atheists right if this were true, since Jesus admired those who have faith and have not seen?

Almost every religion requires such a leap of faith. Why play Russian roulette?