Debating with Atheists

[Goonie]

I think anyone who self-identifies as "Atheist" and then hangs out on something called "Christian Forum" is looking to pick a fight. Otherwise, they'd call themselves something less inflammatory, like "seeker".

Actually, I hang out on this forum because it is well moderated, gives an insight into the wide range of opinions and beliefs of people who are outside of my personal experience.

 

[durangodawood]

I went on several atheist forums
and they quickly banned me.
They could not contend
with the wisdom of the Spirit of God.

How ever do they manage here, I wonder?

 

[razzelflabben]

Do you think the average atheist on this forum is like that?

of those that I have had the privilege of talking to, yes...that being said, I am sure I haven't talked to most so I couldn't actually answer that question. I have met a few here who wanted to talk...

 

[jayem]

I came here originally for the E & M forum. Which was recommended to me by a minister. I've had an interest in ethics for a long time--especially biomedical ethics, since I work in health care. I served on my hospital's Ethics Committee for over 10 years. Our co-chairman was the Director of Pastoral Services, and an ordained Methodist minister. He was familiar with CF, and told me to check out the E & M forum. Not specifically for biomedical issues, but as a generally friendly venue where opinions can be shared by believers and non-believers alike. I retired from committee work years ago. But I've hung around here because I enjoy stimulating, intellectual discussions. It's fun. And good brain exercise.

BTW: Mike (the minister) and I became pretty good buddies. He knew of course that I was not religious at all, but we got along really well. We usually saw eye-to-eye on the cases we discussed. Proving that Christians and atheists can play well together, and just be pals. We don't have to be at each other's throats.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Religion (not only Christianity, any religion) is faith-based.
Atheism is a view arrived at by a rejection of faith.

Almost. Atheism is not something you "arrive" at by "rejecting faith".
Rather, it is something you default to when you don't invoke faith, when you don't consider "faith" to be a proper justification for believing anything.

You need to do something to be a theist. You need to affirmatively believe something.
Not doing that (that is to say: doing nothing), defaults you to "not a theist". That is to say, an atheist.

It's fine with me if you want to live your lives that way, we'll see how it turns out in the end.

Or we won't, off course... if the end is what it is: the end.

But these are two completely opposite things, there is no point in trying to argue from a faith position with somebody who has already rejected faith.

Indeed.
On the other hand, you could try and demonstrate how invoking "faith" can ever lead anyone to correct and accurate answers.

For example, is there anything that one can not believe on faith?

 

[DogmaHunter]

For those who are convinced God does not exist, there are gaps to be filled in their beliefs regarding the origins of things.

"gaps" in knowledge are addressed with "we don't know, let's get to work and try and find out". Desperatly seeking some gap-filler, any gap-filler, is what theists do.

I'm fine saying I don't know, when I don't know.

Atheism of the gaps, so to speak.

Projection.

So they have to be convinced the origins of our mindbogglingly complex common reality are somehow mindless and purposeless causes.

I don't "have" to be convinced of anything, when the reality is that we simply do not know.

They spend tons of money and hours to come up with naturalistic answers to fill the gaps.

It's called scientific research and it's thanks to such research that you have a device with which you can communicate your misunderstandings at lightspeed on this platform.

You can fill libraries with atheist Scripture.

If by "atheist scripture", you really mean "science", then sure. In fact, libraries ARE filled with science works. Perhaps you should visit one and read up one of these days.

They often (seem to) have more faith than Christians do.

Atheists typically have no "faith" in anything...
It's actually usually the reason that they are atheists... because they realise that "faith" is not a pathway to truth.

 

[DogmaHunter]

I think anyone who self-identifies as "Atheist" and then hangs out on something called "Christian Forum" is looking to pick a fight. Otherwise, they'd call themselves something less inflammatory, like "seeker".

So, you want atheists to lie? Just to spare your feelings, because the word "atheist" scares you or something?

 

[razzelflabben]

"gaps" in knowledge are addressed with "we don't know, let's get to work and try and find out". Desperatly seeking some gap-filler, any gap-filler, is what theists do.

I have to disagree with you here...some do of course but there are many that need more answers then the "God of the gaps" and many who detest that answer.

I'm fine saying I don't know, when I don't know.

most of the believers I know are comfortable with saying "I don't know" when they don't know.

If by "atheist scripture", you really mean "science", then sure. In fact, libraries ARE filled with science works. Perhaps you should visit one and read up one of these days.



Atheists typically have no "faith" in anything...

and yet you just said that atheists have faith in science that science will provide the answers...so which is it?

 

[bhsmte]

I think anyone who self-identifies as "Atheist" and then hangs out on something called "Christian Forum" is looking to pick a fight. Otherwise, they'd call themselves something less inflammatory, like "seeker".

Well, you are free to think that.

 

[AnotherAtheist]

but, isn't living a life where one does not believe in faith, an act of faith?

Faith is complete trust in something or someone...don't the atheists put their faith in themselves, science, or something like that? So they are still living by faith they just put their faith in something other than a deity

The following discusses 'faith', though I believe that religious faith is quite a different thing from the everyday usage of the word 'faith'.

First, I would say that faith is not 'complete trust'. You can have partial or limited faith in something. At least in the everyday meaning.

Second, putting your everyday faith in science does not mean that any single scientific theory or claim is believed utterly to the point where the agent could never reject it. Any theory in science can be rejected if it does not match the evidence. However, we have some theories that are so well supported by evidence that it's incredibly unlikely that they will every be rejected.

Third, faith can be justified or unjustified. If I have faith in the ability of science to explain the world, then this is based on the evidence that science has and is leading us to better and better understanding of the world, how it works, and how it can be predicted. This is a justification of that faith. For individual scientific theories that are incredibly well supported by the evidence, everyday faith is justified.

If I choose to have religious faith in Tolkien's mythology because I suddenly decide that the Ainur exist and decided to reveal their truth through Tolkien then this would be an unjustified faith as there is nothing to support it, and it conflicts with the evidence that Tolkien made up that mythology and it is purely fiction. This religious faith would remain unjustified until such time as I could produce evidence for it.

 

[razzelflabben]

The following discusses 'faith', though I believe that religious faith is quite a different thing from the everyday usage of the word 'faith'.

how so? faith is putting your trust in something. The religious put their faith/trust in a supernatural being (usually depends on the religion) we all have faith in something or someone the difference is merely in who or what we put our faith.

First, I would say that faith is not 'complete trust'. You can have partial or limited faith in something. At least in the everyday meaning.

fait enough. For example, I can have faith that the car will start while worrying if it really will start.

Second, putting your everyday faith in science does not mean that any single scientific theory or claim is believed utterly to the point where the agent could never reject it. Any theory in science can be rejected if it does not match the evidence. However, we have some theories that are so well supported by evidence that it's incredibly unlikely that they will every be rejected.

but that would be faith in the specific theory being talked about now science in general which is a process of discovery. So I don't think I can give you this point like I did above.

Third, faith can be justified or unjustified. If I have faith in the ability of science to explain the world, then this is based on the evidence that science has and is leading us to better and better understanding of the world, how it works, and how it can be predicted. This is a justification of that faith. For individual scientific theories that are incredibly well supported by the evidence, everyday faith is justified.

the believer says the same about God so in this point they are equal in standing. Just because the evidence might be all or part internal does NOT remove evidence from the picture. For some the evidence of God is nothing more than the logical better way to live (as in Love). For some the evidence is what they have seen in others (atheist friend who recently came to accept Christ is in this boat) and for some it is all internal, (they took a chance and God revealed Himself to them. Still for others it is a combination of things. Bottom line is that they are all based on some form of evidence. In fact, scripture says that man is without excuse because there is evidence of God. IOW's even scripture talks about the evidence that leads to belief of the heart.

If I choose to have religious faith in Tolkien's mythology because I suddenly decide that the Ainur exist and decided to reveal their truth through Tolkien then this would be an unjustified faith as there is nothing to support it, and it conflicts with the evidence that Tolkien made up that mythology and it is purely fiction. This religious faith would remain unjustified until such time as I could produce evidence for it.

I know very very very....in fact I can't think of a single person I personally know that believes anything about God without evidence of some kind.

BTW, I want to thank you for this discussion it is really encouraging that we can talk. I look forward to your rebuttal. (NO sarcasm...I am really energized by your post)

 

[AnotherAtheist]

how so? faith is putting your trust in something. The religious put their faith/trust in a supernatural being (usually depends on the religion) we all have faith in something or someone the difference is merely in who or what we put our faith.

Faith differs in many ways. E.g. the degree of justification for faith. And in particular the strength of faith compared to the amount of justification. Also the resistance of faith to being abandoned in the face of evidence to the contrary.

fait enough. For example, I can have faith that the car will start while worrying if it really will start. but that would be faith in the specific theory being talked about now science in general which is a process of discovery. So I don't think I can give you this point like I did above. the believer says the same about God so in this point they are equal in standing. Just because the evidence might be all or part internal does NOT remove evidence from the picture.

These are very different types of evidence. Hence, the faith is a very different type of faith. Internal feelings can be shown to be an unreliable method for choosing beliefs as they can be shown to very often lead to false beliefs. E.g. people from all religions will base their beliefs on internal feelings: they can't all be correct as many religions contradict each other. And there are many other ways to show that faith based on internal feelings is frequently wrong.

Faith due to physical evidence is different as it can be objective. And, the experience of our species is that creating theories based on objective physical evidence, discarding or modifying theories if they are not consistent with new evidence, etc., is the best way we have for choosing what to believe as it leads to the greatest number of true beliefs.

For some the evidence of God is nothing more than the logical better way to live (as in Love). For some the evidence is what they have seen in others (atheist friend who recently came to accept Christ is in this boat) and for some it is all internal, (they took a chance and God revealed Himself to them. Still for others it is a combination of things. Bottom line is that they are all based on some form of evidence. In fact, scripture says that man is without excuse because there is evidence of God. IOW's even scripture talks about the evidence that leads to belief of the heart. I know very very very....in fact I can't think of a single person I personally know that believes anything about God without evidence of some kind.

A logical better way to live is a philosophy, not a religion. If someone was previously downright evil, e.g. they were abusing people, engaging in crime, etc., and they 'accepted Christ' and became a more socially 'good' person in response to that, then maybe they could be said to have found a better way to live. However, that doesn't show that the precepts of the religion is true. E.g. the moral 'do unto others as you would have them do unto you' is something that 'works' independent of religions that have adopted it. So, adopting a religion could result in someone living in a better way, but that is the philosophical aspect of the religion in action, not the supernatural aspects. There used to be a guy at speaker's corner in London propounding Christian Atheism - which extracts the philosophical aspects of Christ's message from the supernatural aspects.

Like faith, there is evidence of various types. Some is much more reliable than other types. I heard something on a radio many decades ago where a woman described how she knows that there is a God. She said that she decided to commit suicide, and went to a pharmacist to ask for some poison to kill herself with. (Not saying directly that she wanted to kill herself.) She told the pharmacist that she wanted some rat poison and asked the pharmacist if this was sufficient to kill 'a large animal'. The pharmacist sold her some 'poison' which the woman took home and drank. She said that she not only survived, but experienced no ill effects whatsoever. The woman says that she believes that God saved her from the poison and that this is proof of God. Personally I believe it far, far, more plausible that the pharmacist had an idea of what was happening, and substituted an innocuous substance for the poison. Therefore, I don't find this in any way convincing evidence for God. But, she does. She beliefs she has complete proof. That doesn't mean that she does.

I personally find it somewhat disappointing that people will attribute their recovery from life-threatening illnesses to God and prayer. These people will have usually benefitted from modern medicine, and medical professionals will have worked hard to save them. However, it's God that is thanked. Again, it seems to me that this is not evidence of God in particular, but mis-attributed cause of them recovering. The same applies even in cases of spontaneous remission (which happens in cancer, for example.) This will often be attributed to God, but we have an immune system and we know that we aren't always able to predict what it will be able to handle and what it won't.

If you watch videos of 'street epistemology', then people will discuss their reasons for believing. When the reasons for belief are examined carefully, the originally stated evidence for belief is found to be not the real reason for belief, and further examination shows that the belief is often based on feelings, or a religious text 'making sense to me'. But even then, if this was truly the case, then we wouldn't expect religion to run in families as it does. Like physical scientific evidence, we can examine the evidence and come to conclusions about how reliable it is. (E.g. scientific evidence collected where the placebo effect has not been accounted for, or where statistical significance is not achieved.) And to me: the evidence that religious people base their beliefs on is not good evidence.

 

[razzelflabben]

Faith differs in many ways. E.g. the degree of justification for faith. And in particular the strength of faith compared to the amount of justification. Also the resistance of faith to being abandoned in the face of evidence to the contrary.

lots in this to address but I will limit it to the very fact that most believers (christians) base their belief on evidence. Obvious there are some that don't as is true with all belief systems (faith) but most do, which makes your point irrelevant to the discussion.

These are very different types of evidence. Hence, the faith is a very different type of faith. Internal feelings can be shown to be an unreliable method for choosing beliefs as they can be shown to very often lead to false beliefs. E.g. people from all religions will base their beliefs on internal feelings: they can't all be correct as many religions contradict each other. And there are many other ways to show that faith based on internal feelings is frequently wrong.

amen...but we are not talking about feelings we are talking about an inward change of the basic essence of the person. Scripture calls it many things like the new creation, circumcision of the heart, crucifying self, etc. basically it boils down to this, the sinful evil desires that once drove us give way to something very different and righteous. It's like the person only better thus not about feelings at all. So again your post shows a lack of understanding of what is being said here.

Faith due to physical evidence is different as it can be objective. And, the experience of our species is that creating theories based on objective physical evidence, discarding or modifying theories if they are not consistent with new evidence, etc., is the best way we have for choosing what to believe as it leads to the greatest number of true beliefs.

and many many many believers base their belief on evidence as I just pointed out...NOT FEELINGS as you assert but the evidence of change as well as other evidences.

A logical better way to live is a philosophy, not a religion. If someone was previously downright evil, e.g. they were abusing people, engaging in crime, etc., and they 'accepted Christ' and became a more socially 'good' person in response to that, then maybe they could be said to have found a better way to live.

this is funny because that is what we were talking about...a change not a feeling and you missed it.

However, that doesn't show that the precepts of the religion is true. E.g. the moral 'do unto others as you would have them do unto you' is something that 'works' independent of religions that have adopted it.

true, for that you need more than just a change in behavior you also need a change in desire, in thought, in power as in overcoming etc. all things that are taught in that "book" IOW's it is when we understand the changes and how they line up with scripture that we find evidence. If they are not consistent with scripture they are not evidence for scripture but if they line up then they are evidence for....not necessarily conclusive but evidence none the less and a start for knowing what is truth.

So, adopting a religion could result in someone living in a better way, but that is the philosophical aspect of the religion in action, not the supernatural aspects. There used to be a guy at speaker's corner in London propounding Christian Atheism - which extracts the philosophical aspects of Christ's message from the supernatural aspects.

agreed, but as I pointed out, that isn't what we are talking about...we are talking about a change that is consistent with what scripture teaches which includes but is not limited to a supernatural power to do what the world cannot do or understand.

Like faith, there is evidence of various types. Some is much more reliable than other types. I heard something on a radio many decades ago where a woman described how she knows that there is a God. She said that she decided to commit suicide, and went to a pharmacist to ask for some poison to kill herself with. (Not saying directly that she wanted to kill herself.) She told the pharmacist that she wanted some rat poison and asked the pharmacist if this was sufficient to kill 'a large animal'. The pharmacist sold her some 'poison' which the woman took home and drank. She said that she not only survived, but experienced no ill effects whatsoever. The woman says that she believes that God saved her from the poison and that this is proof of God. Personally I believe it far, far, more plausible that the pharmacist had an idea of what was happening, and substituted an innocuous substance for the poison. Therefore, I don't find this in any way convincing evidence for God. But, she does. She beliefs she has complete proof. That doesn't mean that she does.

enough and yet this again is NOT what we are talking about. This could be added to the evidence I am talking about but it is not the evidence itself.

That being said, everyone is looking for something that only God can fill. When we find that thing, we find our individual evidence but that is far from the collective evidence. For example in the above illustration the woman apparently was looking for some reason to live...she found it in God therefore sees God in her reason to live. I was looking for power to survive and found power to thrive...this is my individual reason to believe. But in the discussion we are talking about a general reason or general evidence not individual evidence...to that end we have to look at something different...for that evidence we need to look at whether or not the evidence scripture tells us will be there is there and whether or not that evidence is consistent with a supernatural force. Both are necessary because one tells us if there is a supernatural being and the other who that supernatural being is....

I personally find it somewhat disappointing that people will attribute their recovery from life-threatening illnesses to God and prayer. These people will have usually benefitted from modern medicine, and medical professionals will have worked hard to save them. However, it's God that is thanked. Again, it seems to me that this is not evidence of God in particular, but mis-attributed cause of them recovering. The same applies even in cases of spontaneous remission (which happens in cancer, for example.) This will often be attributed to God, but we have an immune system and we know that we aren't always able to predict what it will be able to handle and what it won't.

oh I agree but that isn't what we are talking about so I'm not sure what more you want me to say on that matter. I despise the God of the gaps mentality where everything considered good is attributed to God and everything considered bad is attributed to satan...but we are talking about a real life, powerful change that defies the world here not the God of the gaps mentality so not sure where you want to go with this.

If you watch videos of 'street epistemology', then people will discuss their reasons for believing. When the reasons for belief are examined carefully, the originally stated evidence for belief is found to be not the real reason for belief, and further examination shows that the belief is often based on feelings, or a religious text 'making sense to me'. But even then, if this was truly the case, then we wouldn't expect religion to run in families as it does. Like physical scientific evidence, we can examine the evidence and come to conclusions about how reliable it is. (E.g. scientific evidence collected where the placebo effect has not been accounted for, or where statistical significance is not achieved.) And to me: the evidence that religious people base their beliefs on is not good evidence.

again a lot of different things to talk about but I will only touch on two and you can expand as you want.

1. do you really want me to believe that things like belief in the theory of evolutions or science as an authority for our belief does NOT run in families? Cause if that is your argument I will laugh out loud then point you to some truth you seem to be missing.

2. I was once in a discussion with atheists where I described a situation I was in as to the situation outcome defying the natural law of this world as we know it. The atheists in that discussion refused to accept it and preferred to argue that 1. a unknown natural force like we see in science fiction movies must have been a better answer than a supernatural being interfering and 2. if we couldn't recreate a supernatural interference then there must not have been a supernatural interference...now a serious question...do you really not see the problem with those two arguments when it comes to looking for actual evidence of a supernatural interference?

 

[faroukfarouk]

lots in this to address but I will limit it to the very fact that most believers (christians) base their belief on evidence.

Hi; & this is the best evidence of all:

"Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen." (Hebrews 11.1)

 

[razzelflabben]

Hi; & this is the best evidence of all:

"Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen." (Hebrews 11.1)

there is much more evidence but yes...creation is one evidence...as is the inward change

 

[faroukfarouk]

there is much more evidence but yes...creation is one evidence...as is the inward change

Someone said that you and I are the only Bible that some people will ever read...

 

[FreeinChrist]

MOD HAT

Folks, this is not the place to debate theology or for general apologetics (atheism vs Christianity). This thread is closed. Check Christian Apologetics.