Atheism is reasonable, and Christianity is not

[MyGivenNameIsKeith]

We're here to discuss the OP. If you want to preach to atheists, there's the Exploring Christianity thread.

You can't just hijack my thread and tell me what it's supposed to be about. You stick to the OP, or there's no discussion.

This is quite relevant to the OP. You quoted the gumball theory and said that somehow with that theory you state, proves Christianity is unreasonable because it requires faith. More or less, I responded that it takes faith to be an atheist as well, which according to your own logic, is equally unreasonable.

 

[MyGivenNameIsKeith]

It is important to note, that concerning the supernatural, the Bible has the most evidence for what it teaches. The same cannot be said about Zeus, Thor, flying spaghetti monsters, and the plethora of other "deities" that one might come up with. Sufficed to say, that concerning the faith of things not seen, the Bible would be the most reliable source, as it is, and has been supported by much evidence inside and outside of the Scriptures themselves. And it is monotheistic. Therefore, in regards to your OP, Christianity is reasonable, while Atheism is not, and is speculation and unsound theory at best, because regardless of the credentials of the authors, truth is still truth; and a fabrication is still a fabrication.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

Not a single thing you've said here is correct.

 

[MyGivenNameIsKeith]

Then you are just arguing for the sake of arguing and believe you are correct no matter what anyone else says even when truth is presented. I would assume that past experience has hardened your heart to the subject at hand. Which does not promote a good conversational grounds. So I bid you good day. I'll pray for you.

 

[variant]

I mean, does any of the above really seem 'dual' to you? Am I missing some problem here that should really wreck my faith if I don't know how to address it? I'm sure that I'm not aware of all of the metaphysical issues which could bring up and by which I could be asked, “but what about this, and this, and this, and this, etc.?”

Mind-body dualism is favored by religious folks because something like substance dualism seems to be necessary to have an incorporeal God.

If reality is strictly physical then God needs some sort of "body" to produce the mind.

I'm not sure Christian "Materialism" would be capable of dealing with that particular problem.

 

[MyGivenNameIsKeith]

Actually, man being made in God's image is triune in nature. Mind, body, and spirit. And all mankind is without excuse when it comes to God, as we all know he exists. From the very time you were aware of the dual nature of the conscience(2) inside of the body(1). 2+1=3. Non religious folks tend to speak eloquently about physical substance, because physical substance is what matters to them. In their minds it substantiates their own shortcomings and lack of faith. That somehow, to them, if there is a God, that superior intellect, deception, and sitting on the sidelines of faith, never stepping onto the playing field will warrant a ticket into the pearly gates. When deep down, death and the void of darkness that has corrupted their heart, consumed their mind, and their life speaks volumes to the existence of a need for salvation. Jesus provides that salvation for free. No gimmicks.

 

[ToddNotTodd]

And all mankind is without excuse when it comes to God, as we all know he exists.

Demonstrably incorrect...

 

[MyGivenNameIsKeith]

Demonstrably incorrect...

Since there are things which are invisible, that are clearly understood, even by those who don't believe they exist; it stands to reason that pie charts and graphs and pretty pictures can't help. Gnosticism and atheism have nothing to do with my personal relationship with God, as that is a thinking man's way to dismiss or even claim to "know" God though intelligence, which cannot be done.

 

[ToBeLoved]

Matt Dillahunty has clarified the atheist position with the following gumball analogy, which I have paraphrased:

Suppose there exists a gumball machine, and we don't know how many gumballs are inside it. If you told me that there were an even number of gumballs in the machine, then I would reject your assertion. Your assertion is rejected on the grounds of insufficient evidence, and I am not claiming that there is an odd number of gumballs. The fact of the matter is that we don't know and can't know how many gumballs there are, and so any positive assertion is unreasonable.

This is why most atheists are the "lack of belief" type of atheist. Some of these atheists might positively assert that Jehovah cannot exist, but this is usually because of the fact that Jehovah is often saddled with self-contradictory properties. Make Jehovah's properties self-consistent, and most atheists will not positively assert that he does not exist.

Those atheists who do assert that no gods exist are (hopefully) operating under the null hypothesis. For example, we might say that adding racing stripes to a vehicle will not make it go faster. This is not a declaration that experiments have been performed to conclude this, but rather that, by the null hypothesis, this is the default position. So, in that sense, when atheists say that there are no gods, they are (hopefully) speaking formally under the null hypothesis.

If an atheist were to say that there are definitively, absolutely, positively no gods, then they would be unreasonable. For if they were not saying this under the umbrella of the null hypothesis, then they must be declaring it as some conclusion. But most of us can agree that there is no argument which will soundly and validly conclude that there are positively no gods.

But now that we've clarified this, we should turn our attention to the Christian and see that they are unreasonable. The vast majority of theistic arguments are only suited to advance deism, which allows for the existence of one, many, or infinitely many deities. While all of these arguments are flawed, they are at least deductive, whereas Christian-specific arguments are rarely, if ever, deductive. Proving to the satisfaction of an atheist that Jesus rose from the dead does not definitively disprove the existence of Zeus or Thor.

So if a Christian cannot argue beyond the existence of potentially many generic deities, then - just like the atheist - the Christian would be unreasonable to positively assert that Zeus, Thor, and the countless other deities definitively do not exist. Yet, Christian creed demands that this declarative statement is made.

Even if the Christian were to successfully prove the existence of a supreme deity, there is nothing that can be done to show lesser deities do not exist. And gods like Thor certainly are lesser deities, since they are not said to be omnipotent or omniscient. Their existence cannot be disproved.

This means that Christianity is fundamentally unreasonable. Christianity cannot be defended logically, but must be believed by faith. And faith is not a path to the truth: just look no further than Islam.

Arguments for or against God and proof are useless until the afterlife.

Why not enjoy the gumballs while your waiting.

Comparing God to a gumball theory is the most useless thing I have read on CF in over 4 years.

You've made CF history. No defense of Christianity is needed

 

[HitchSlap]

Arguments for or against God and proof are useless until the afterlife.

Why not enjoy the gumballs while your waiting.

Comparing God to a gumball theory is the most useless thing I have read on CF in over 4 years.

You've made CF history. No defense of Christianity is needed

Maybe you missed the point of the gumball analogy.

A jar full of gumballs will either have an odd, or even total. But without counting them, you can never say for certain if it's in fact, odd or even. So it wouldn't be a reasonable position to dogmatically assert either odd or even. The only reasonable position, in this analogy is, "I don't know."

As this analogy applies to god, you have millions of people trying to assert, in many cases quite dogmatically, that there is an EVEN number. Then even further, they make the absurd claim that everyone knows it's an even number.

It's a solid analogy.

 

[ToBeLoved]

Maybe you missed the point of the gumball analogy.

A jar full of gumballs will either have an odd, or even, total. But without counting them, you can never say for certain if it's in fact, odd or even. So it wouldn't be a reasonable position to dogmatically assert either odd or even. The only reasonable position, in this analogy is, "I don't know."

As this analogy applies to god, you have millions of people trying to assert, in many cases quite dogmatically, that there is an EVEN number. Then even further, they make the absurd claim that everyone knows it's an even number.

It's a solid analogy.

No it's not.
Because the analagy is that gumballs exist and are proven to exist. God is said by atheists to not exist.

So you cannot compare in theory that is said to exist with that that is said not to exist.

It is not about the existance or non existance of God how many gumballs exist either way or even whether that number is odd or even. Who cares?

 

[HitchSlap]

It is important to note, that concerning the supernatural, the Bible has the most evidence for what it teaches. The same cannot be said about Zeus, Thor, flying spaghetti monsters, and the plethora of other "deities" that one might come up with. Sufficed to say, that concerning the faith of things not seen, the Bible would be the most reliable source, as it is, and has been supported by much evidence inside and outside of the Scriptures themselves. And it is monotheistic. Therefore, in regards to your OP, Christianity is reasonable, while Atheism is not, and is speculation and unsound theory at best, because regardless of the credentials of the authors, truth is still truth; and a fabrication is still a fabrication.

Actually, outside of the bible, there is scant evidence to support it.

 

[HitchSlap]

No it's not.
Because the analagy is that gumballs exist and are proven to exist. God is said by atheists to not exist.

So you cannot compare in theory that is said to exist with that that is said not to exist.

It is not about the existance or non existance of God how many gumballs exist either way or even whether that number is odd or even. Who cares?

In this analogy, the number of gumballs is either even (god exists), or odd (god does not exist). Without the ability to count them, it would be unreasonable to assert odd or even.

As an atheist, it's not my assertion that god/s doesn't exist, but that I have no belief in god/s existence - that is to say, I don't believe any god/s exist. I'm agnostic as to any god/s existence.

 

[HitchSlap]

Even as an atheist, one is still taking a leap of faith.

Is any faith required of me if I choose not to collect stamps?

 

[ToBeLoved]

In this analogy, the number of gumballs is either even (god exists), or odd (god does not exist). Without the ability to count them, it would be unreasonable to assert odd or even.

As an atheist, it's not my assertion that god/s doesn't exist, but that I have no belief in god/s existence - that is to say, I don't believe any god/s exist. I'm agnostic as to any god/s existence.

But as Christians, why would we care if there are even or odd gumballs?

Who cares? Apologetics defends the faith, God doesn't need to be defended because no one cares how many gumballs their are or if there are an odd or even amount of them.

It's like comparing a human being to a stick. It's not worth even exploring

 

[HitchSlap]

But as Christians, why would we care if there are even or odd gumballs?

Who cares? Apologetics defends the faith, God doesn't need to be defended because no one cares how many gumballs their are or if there are an odd or even amount of them.

It's like comparing a human being to a stick. It's not worth even exploring

I agree, there are many people who don't care if there are an odd or even amount, so long as you stop asserting you know.

 

[ToddNotTodd]

Since there are things which are invisible, that are clearly understood, even by those who don't believe they exist; it stands to reason that pie charts and graphs and pretty pictures can't help. Gnosticism and atheism have nothing to do with my personal relationship with God, as that is a thinking man's way to dismiss or even claim to "know" God though intelligence, which cannot be done.

How does the above address the demonstrable fact that not all people believe a god exists?

 

[ToBeLoved]

I agree, there are many people who don't care if there are an odd or even amount, so long as you stop asserting you know.

I never said I knew if there were an odd or even amount of gumballs.

I said, 'I don't care'.

That there is no reason to defend the faith, because the analogy is like comparing a human being to a stick.

 

[ToddNotTodd]

But as Christians, why would we care if there are even or odd gumballs?

Who cares? Apologetics defends the faith, God doesn't need to be defended because no one cares how many gumballs their are or if there are an odd or even amount of them.

It's like comparing a human being to a stick. It's not worth even exploring

Perhaps you should try and understand what the analogy actually is addressing before you say it’s not worth exploring.

 

[ToBeLoved]

Perhaps you should try and understand what the analogy actually is addressing before you say it’s not worth exploring.

This forum is Apologetics.

This should be in World Religions or Philosophy. This is an idea. A theory.