Atheism is reasonable, and Christianity is not

[HitchSlap]

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.

Well, believing in a god says you have decided there's an even number of gumballs.

 

[ToBeLoved]

Well, believing in a god says you have decided there's an even number of gumballs.

According to your rock solid theory.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

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

You seem to lack an ability to think abstractly, so your insults above don't mean much to me. But thanks for trying!

 

[HitchSlap]

According to your rock solid theory.

According to the laws of logic.

Either your god exists, or it doesn't.

 

[ToBeLoved]

Enjoy your thread. There is no Apologetic reason for me to continue.

God Bless!

 

[HitchSlap]

Enjoy your thread. There is no Apologetic reason for me to continue.

God Bless!

Take care.

 

[Chriliman]

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.

Sure, but there's a difference between saying you don't believe there's an answer to the gumball analogy and saying you believe there is an answer, but that you don't know the answer yet. Same for God, most reasonable people believe there's a true answer about God's existence even if they currently don't know.

Some have discovered the true answer because of their faith that there is a true answer. Others, like yourself, are satisfied with believing there is no true answer.

 

[HitchSlap]

Sure, but there's a difference between saying you don't believe there's an answer to the gumball analogy and saying you believe there is an answer, but that you don't know the answer yet. Same for God, most reasonable people believe there's a true answer about God's existence even if they currently don't know.

Some have discovered the true answer because of their faith that there is a true answer. Others, like yourself, are satisfied with believing there is no true answer.

A god either exists or it doesn’t. Neither of us can prove it’s existence. You choose to believe it does exist.

 

[Chriliman]

A god either exists or it doesn’t. Neither of us can prove it’s existence. You choose to believe it does exist.

Right, and you choose to believe the true answer can't ever be known. If that's actually not your position then you either believe that God does not exist or you believe that God does exist. All the above positions take faith.

 

[HitchSlap]

Right, and you choose to believe the true answer can't ever be known. If that's actually not your position then you either believe that God does not exist or you believe that God does exist. All the above positions take faith.

I don’t know if that answer can be known.

 

[Silmarien]

Right, and you choose to believe the true answer can't ever be known. If that's actually not your position then you either believe that God does not exist or you believe that God does exist. All the above positions take faith.

I'm going to jump in here, because you're really trivializing the concept of faith with this comparison. Atheists have a position, whether or not they are willing to admit it, but it doesn't take faith to pick a side. Faith isn't what separates the theist from the non-theist--a deist who thinks that the evidence points to the existence of God but refuses to ponder the question further doesn't actually have faith either.

Religious faith, especially Christian faith, is different. It is unreasonable. But so is falling in love; so is walking out the front door. You're stepping off a ledge into the unknown, surrendering control, placing a wager on the possibility that life actually does have meaning.

Agnosticism, on the other hand, is entirely reasonable. It doesn't take much of anything to say you don't know and then slam the door shut on life's most profound questions. I'm not sure when apathy became a virtue, but it doesn't get much easier than not caring.

 

[Chriliman]

I don’t know if that answer can be known.

You said God either exists or does not exist, which implies there is a true answer that could be known. Now you're saying you don't know that God could either exist or not exist. Which is the same as saying 'I don't know that the answer to the gumball machine could be even or odd' If you don't know then how'd you pose the analogy in the first place? You gotta have some knowledge.

Let's just agree that God either exists or does not exist and at least you yourself don't yet know the true answer. Sound good?

 

[Chriliman]

I'm going to jump in here, because you're really trivializing the concept of faith with this comparison. Atheists have a position, whether or not they are willing to admit it, but it doesn't take faith to pick a side. Faith isn't what separates the theist from the non-theist--a deist who thinks that the evidence points to the existence of God but refuses to ponder the question further doesn't actually have faith either.

Religious faith, especially Christian faith, is different. It is unreasonable. But so is falling in love; so is walking out the front door. You're stepping off a ledge into the unknown, surrendering control, placing a wager on the possibility that life actually does have meaning.

Agnosticism, on the other hand, is entirely reasonable. It doesn't take much of anything to say you don't know and then slam the door shut on life's most profound questions. I'm not sure when apathy became a virtue, but it doesn't get much easier than not caring.

I agree with what you've said for the most part.
Back to the gumball thing, it isnt faithless to believe the answer can't be known. It also isn't faithless to believe the answer can be known. It may however be faithless to not care about the answer all together as you've eluded to above, but I don't believe I've yet met an atheist who doesn't care about the answer.

 

[ToddNotTodd]

Atheists have a position, whether or not they are willing to admit it, but it doesn't take faith to pick a side.

As an atheist, my position is that I haven’t heard a good reason to believe in a god.

Agnosticism, on the other hand, is entirely reasonable. It doesn't take much of anything to say you don't know and then slam the door shut on life's most profound questions. I'm not sure when apathy became a virtue, but it doesn't get much easier than not caring.

How on earth do you equate “I don’t know” with apathy? Seems ridiculous to me, not to mention insulting. I’d much rather say “I don’t know” than arbitrarily “picking a side”, which seems intellectually lazy...

 

[HitchSlap]

You said God either exists or does not exist, which implies there is a true answer that could be known. Now you're saying you don't know that God could either exist or not exist. Which is the same as saying 'I don't know that the answer to the gumball machine could be even or odd' If you don't know then how'd you pose the analogy in the first place? You gotta have some knowledge.

Let's just agree that God either exists or does not exist and at least you yourself don't yet know the true answer. Sound good?

Per usual, your logic is flawed.
There is either an even or odd number of gumballs. We don’t know which one it is. You’re free to believe it’s an even number if you like. Just don’t expect me to believe you know.

 

[Silmarien]

As an atheist, my position is that I haven’t heard a good reason to believe in a god.

Are you a naturalist or a non-naturalist?

How on earth do you equate “I don’t know” with apathy? Seems ridiculous to me, not to mention insulting.

I'm a Kierkegaardian existentialist. Not knowing is the cornerstone of my theology, so I do view atheists who do nothing but whine about epistemological issues quite negatively. Move on and start exploring the ramifications of an atheistic worldview, like Sartre and Camus did. Sam Harris seems to be the only current popular atheist who wrestles with these issues in a serious way, and thus he is the only one I have respect for. (Of the popularizers. I like some of the academic philosophers too.)

I’d much rather say “I don’t know” than arbitrarily “picking a side”, which seems intellectually lazy...

I don't think anyone "arbitrarily" picks a side. There is nothing intellectually lazy about admitting that you find one side more compelling than the other and then exploring it further.

 

[ToddNotTodd]

Are you a naturalist or a non-naturalist?

Yes

Actually, I find the labels, along with most philosophical labels, to be unhelpful. I'm happy to answer any specific questions you have though.

I'm a Kierkegaardian existentialist.

I'm Todd, nice to meet you.

Not knowing is the cornerstone of my theology, so I do view atheists who do nothing but whine about epistemological issues quite negatively. Move on and start exploring the ramifications of an atheistic worldview, like Sartre and Camus did. Sam Harris seems to be the only current popular atheist who wrestles with these issues in a serious way, and thus he is the only one I have respect for. (Of the popularizers. I like some of the academic philosophers too.)

I remember listening to Harris's TED talk about objective morality and thinking he doesn't have a clue what he's talking about. I mean, I suppose it's nice to be passionate and all, but that doesn't equate to good philosophy.

Personally, having been on both sides of the fence, I don't really see any ramifications of an "atheistic worldview" as opposed to a theistic one. But then again, I think the overexamined life isn't worth living, so it doesn't cross my mind all that much...

I don't think anyone "arbitrarily" picks a side. There is nothing intellectually lazy about admitting that you find one side more compelling than the other and then exploring it further.

If I say "I don't know" if a particular god proposal is accurate, it also means I have no way of telling if one side ("yes it's accurate" or "no it isn't") is more compelling or not, given that "compelling" to me in this case equates to "more likely". At that point, I absolutely would be arbitrarily "picking a side".

How would I not?

 

[MyGivenNameIsKeith]

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

I was simply responding to the graph that you use as your signature. A pictorial which portrays people in one of four boxes.
In seeking God, you still haven't found him. Through all your research, books, pie charts, he still eludes you. And no matter how much intelligence and thinking you come up with, will continue, unless the Holy Spirit convicts you of your need for salvation. You still think you are God. You are looking for the answers to questions you already know the answer to. You know God exists. You have always known. Why else would you title yourself "seeker"? I know he exists and acknowledge he exists.

 

[Chriliman]

Per usual, your logic is flawed.
There is either an even or odd number of gumballs. We don’t know which one it is. You’re free to believe it’s an even number if you like. Just don’t expect me to believe you know.

No need to throw out false accusations, I understand the logic behind this.

There's also the possibility that the answer is known but that some haven't come across convincing evidence and therefore don't claim to know.

 

[HitchSlap]

No need to throw out false accusations, I understand the logic behind this.

There's also the possibility that the answer is known but that some haven't come across convincing evidence and therefore don't claim to know.

I will agree that some have come across what they consider to be convincing evidence. It's usally in the form of miracles and incredulity. Real evidence is objective and demonstrable. So while you may believe you've seen enough evidence to convince you it's odd, without either of us being able to count the gumballs, I'm forced to accept it's either odd or even.