Forums → WEPR → [nec]Christianity vs Atheism
| 3094 | 516175 |
I am a christian, i and i strongly belive in my lord jesus christ, and i also belive that if you belive in him and except him as your savior, u will go to heaven. and i also believe that he created the world, not the big bang, or that we came from stupid apes.
- 3,094 Replies
Theists could believe in fanasties like dungeons and dragons like cetuars and the linch king.
Please correct me if I am wrong
Well I suppose so. If someone believed in them and worshiped them then yeah, they'd be theists dedicated to the Lich King instead of God. And I'd be equally inclined to believe in the Lich King.
That brings me back to the point believing in something like god that doesn't stand up to facts is not very smart.
Theists believe in something even though it's illogical, does not stand up to reason, and has no supporting evidence.
Straw-manning the theist's position isn't going to do anyone any good. And while many people can't give good reasons (philosophically or theologically) as to why their belief in God is justified, that's not to say that such justification doesn't exist. I also feel strongly that we shouldn't call theism illogical. Merely believing is a god (not any one in particular) does not violate any rules of logic.
However, there are some arguments that could show particular religions (especially Christianity) to be irrational. But these kinds of arguments go over about as well as you'd expect them against a theist.
Atheists decide not to believe until they see some proof.
Not believing something isn't the same as believing that something is not the case. Theists assert some proposition G )something about a god's existence) - a proposition which the atheist would outright deny. So an atheist would assent to G's negation ~G. Whereas an agnostic would assent to neither G nor ~G.
For me, there is no amount of evidence, empirical or otherwise, that would convince me of any proposition remotely similar to G.
Straw-manning the theist's position isn't going to do anyone any good.
And who's straw manning? I do not push onto any theist position an idea which they do not hold as implied by their admission of adherence to a particular faith, ergo there is no straw man fallacy being committed.
And while many people can't give good reasons (philosophically or theologically) as to why their belief in God is justified, that's not to say that such justification doesn't exist.
I never said that they didn't have justifications, I said their justifications are illogical, do not stand up to reason, and have no factual basis. That is all accurate. Funny you should claim that I used a straw man fallacy, then used one on me.
Merely believing is a god (not any one in particular) does not violate any rules of logic.
Please explain to me how the assertion of something that completely lacks any evidence as a fact is logical in any sense of the word?
Not believing something isn't the same as believing that something is not the case.
Not necessarily. There is no positive or negative assertation being made. Only a lack of assertation one way or another. While there are some atheists who deny the existence of deities, the overwhelming majority are simply witholding an assertation until evidence is provided.
And atheism and agnosticism deal with different positions entirely. Atheism/thesim deal with a belief, while agnosticism/gnosticism deal with knowledge. One is not required for the other, and the terms are not interchangeable. If you are not a theist then you an atheist, if you are not gnostic then you are agnostic. However you can be either gnostic/agnostic AND theist/atheist.
Where is the fun in logic. I believe in aliens and their is no "solid" evidence (EXCEPT that i think the size of the universe alone is PROof of the existence of other intelligent life). Although other intelligent life equal to or greater than humans IS logical.
Please explain to me how the assertion of something that completely lacks any evidence as a fact is logical in any sense of the word?
As i said intelligence besides human is logical, and "UFO sitings" are equivelent to Religious books written thousands of years ago by those who listened to GOD from my point of view. There are theist who believe in God but not that any other intelligent life exist, that i do not comply with. This will make you feel tiny in the universe, and even this desnt not EVEN COME CLOSE to showing the universes full size.
WE ARE SMALL
Where is the fun in logic.
Well I derive a lot of fun knowing that what I think is demonstrably true, and enjoy it so much that I won't buy anything that isn't, and if something comes along that disproves my current position I will immediately review all evidence and if necessary change my thought process. I don't find it fun to make wild assertations with no basis in reality, and I don't find it fun when those who do so affect my life via laws. I am proud to be educated and well informed, and aim to keep myself that way and hope to inspire that drive in those whom I meet. That's the fun in logic.
And who's straw manning? I do not push onto any theist position an idea which they do not hold as implied by their admission of adherence to a particular faith, ergo there is no straw man fallacy being committed.
Trying to say that the theist's position is illogical, unsupported by evidence, and that it's just that simple. Trying to deny the law of non-contradiction is illogical. Theism, by itself, is not.
I never said that they didn't have justifications, I said their justifications are illogical, do not stand up to reason, and have no factual basis. That is all accurate. Funny you should claim that I used a straw man fallacy, then used one on me.
It seems like you're conflating the notion of something being illogical with something that is irrational. While believing something that is illogical would, in turn, be irrational for a given agent, that doesn't imply the converse is true.
If the justifications were illogical, then they wouldn't be justifications. So if I assert the following proposition: "I am male and I am not male" and then tried to justify that claim by denying the law of non contradiction, then we'd have illogical justification. But part of something's being justification for something else is that it is epistemically proper to hold that justification. If someone's axioms for a belief are not themselves justified, then we don't call that justification.
Calling the theist's beliefs illogical is straw manning the position because it's just false. Calling their beliefs unsupported by evidence is merely begging the question against the theist.
Please explain to me how the assertion of something that completely lacks any evidence as a fact is logical in any sense of the word?
Hopefully I've addressed this worry by showing that you're conflating the notions of illogical and irrational. We may hope for an argument that shows theistic belief to be irrational. The only way to show it's illogical is to stipulate some formal system of logic in which axioms about deities cannot be introduced into the system on pain of contradiction. But then the illogicality is a trivial matter.
If you want to be the one raving in the corner that all theists are illogical - or even irrational - in their beliefs, then be my guest. But in so doing, you've effectively eliminated yourself from the conversation. We accuse theists (especially Christians) of being closed-minded and not open to any sort of counterargument. But if you're going to defeat the evidence or justification before it can even be discussed, the dialogue is simply going to fizzle out.
Atheists don't believe in God.
God doesn't believe in Atheists.
I doubt there is an atheist who hasn't for even a second believed in a Higher Power.
Likewise even the Pope has probally had a doubt at some point.
Is it possible that "God" triggered the big bang? That the big bang is God's creation?
On the otherhand as long as people believe in God is God not real?
Trying to say that the theist's position is illogical, unsupported by evidence, and that it's just that simple.
But the theists position is illogical and unsupported by evidence.
If the justifications were illogical, then they wouldn't be justifications. So if I assert the following proposition: "I am male and I am not male" and then tried to justify that claim by denying the law of non contradiction, then we'd have illogical justification.
I can think of many points in theistic beliefs that do just that.
Calling their beliefs unsupported by evidence is merely begging the question against the theist.
What supporting evidence do they have?
But if you're going to defeat the evidence or justification before it can even be discussed, the dialogue is simply going to fizzle out.
I don't think that's what he's doing. If new evidence can be presented then the views on the matter change.
Trying to say that the theist's position is illogical, unsupported by evidence, and that it's just that simple. Trying to deny the law of non-contradiction is illogical. Theism, by itself, is not.
A StrawMan fallacy is saying that someone holds a position that they do not hold. Stating that their position is illogical or irrational does NOT attribute to them any position, ergo it cannot be a strawman fallacy. I would suggest you look up the definitions of logical fallacies before you use them, because you are using them out of context.
I will lay out for you why theism is illogical, irrational, and unsupported by evidence.
Theism is based on circular logic. Theism is true because their books say it is true. Their books have authority because the true deity inspired them. Each is proof of the other. There is no confirming evidence outside of this. Therefor it is irrational, illogical, and not supported by any empirical, demonstrable evidence.
I just realized that some may not quite understand my previous point.
1. Being that the authority of theistic faith is derived from a logical fallacy it is by definition illogical.
2. There is not observable, demonstrable, and testable evidence regarding theism, therefore it is not supported by any evidence.
3. Asserting something which is illogical and has no positive evidence as a fact is not a rational position to take, therefore theism is irrational.
I hope I have explained this in clear enough terms for everyone to understand.
I am not closed-minded at all. The very nature of scientific inquiry requires one to be open minded. I want to believe that there is a god, a heaven, and afterlife. I simply cannot without evidence which makes such a belief logical and rational. Please, if you have demonstrable positive evidence present it to me. I would be more than willing to change my mind.
i'm a catholic. i have no problem with atheists what so ever. one of my friends is one, and he's a great guy.
i agree with thingthingjack. i also believe in god but dont go to church. call it lazy faith. there is nothing wrong with athiests and it's not nice that peaple say it's wrong. i also have to say no matter what logic and evidence a athiest says to me will not change me. and no matter what i preach and say no atheist will belive in god. so this forum is piontless. good night.
and no matter what i preach and say no atheist will belive in god. so this forum is piontless. good night.
As stated before most atheist will change there mind if provided with sufficient evidence.
i also have to say no matter what logic and evidence a athiest says to me will not change me. and no matter what i preach and say no atheist will belive in god.
Well, thanks for being honest about the first part. Admitting that you are closed minded is good. That way we won't waste our time with you. Secondly, if you provide evidence I would be more than willing to change my opinion. However until that time I'm not going to assert as a fact something which I cannot prove. If I don't know something is true, but I say it is anyway, I feel like I'm being dishonest.
Thread is locked!