Forums → WEPR → [nec]Christianity vs Atheism

[quote]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.[/quote]

I see the problem. The cristian side is very similar to the atheist side. What is evidence on one side is faith for the other. What is close-mindedness on one side is unbelief on the other. Frankly, the atheist side is very materialistic in their world perspective, while the cristian side is very emotional. An anology I came up with is that the atheist side would say that the number of calories in a cake is x calories. It's accurate, it's good for calculation, but it is a cold number that is very unintresting and unhelpfull for the average person. On the other side, a cristian would say that you will get fat and that you will have a tummyache after eating it. It isn't accurate, but it has more connection to the average persons life.

p.s. I think that if there was the fact that there is no god it will destroy with time the good social life that is given by going to church every sunday.

Frankly, the atheist side is very materialistic in their world perspective, while the cristian side is very emotional

This is only a very rough generalization I think. Of course there are tendencies, and atheists and christian approach the problem from a different angle. But saying that being atheist means being cold and calculating is wrong. As well as is saying being a christian means being emotional.

Frankly, the atheist side is very materialistic in their world perspective, while the cristian side is very emotional.

I've seen Christians that treat church as some sort of military drill and could probably do it while asleep - they are detached from emotion and yet many are also highly materialistic - never donating to charity because they see going to church as a 'redeeming factor' and don't feel helping others is necessary. I've also seen Atheists that would give their coat to a hobo on a cold winter day - one of those Atheists was me admittedly but whatever.

p.s. I think that if there was the fact that there is no god it will destroy with time the good social life that is given by going to church every sunday.

This is a good point. In my opinion Christianity applied to the social life encourages one to be more self-controlled and kind. For example who does the most to help the poor and hungry? the christians do. This is not to say that atheists do not contribute to these causes, but their efforts pale in comparison to what the church does.

i see this string has dissolved into an argument. good bye.

It was an argument to begin with. That's all a debate is. An argument with an agreed format and rules. However no one seems to follow either format or rules. I have laid out my case. I have explained why I find theism illogical, unsupported by evidence, and an irrational belief. If anyone has any logical basis to refute that and wants to change my mind then go for it, but unsubstantiated claims based on personal experience or opinion don't count.

This is not to say that atheists do not contribute to these causes, but their efforts pale in comparison to what the church does.

There are a few problems with this point. The first is that atheism is not a single unified church or group - there is no way to measure atheist contribution against Christian contribution. Second, there are over 1 billion Christians in the world, and there are not nearly as many atheists. We shouldn't expect a few million atheists - once again, an amorphous demographic not unifiable under a church or even groups of multiple churches - to contribute as much effort as a group of over 1 billion people. You're making a lopsided comparison here.

Second, there are over 1 billion Christians in the world, and there are not nearly as many atheists.

Actually estimates are that there are ~2.1 Billion, nearly 1/3 of the world's population. The 'nonreligious' account for ~1 Billion people, however according to the studies at least half of those identifying as 'nonreligious' are actually theists which do not affiliate themselves with any particular denomination. Going by that we can estimate that Christians outnumber true atheists at least 4:1. So yes, I agree that the comparison is quite lopsided.

I've seen Christians that treat church as some sort of military drill and could probably do it while asleep - they are detached from emotion and yet many are also highly materialistic - never donating to charity because they see going to church as a 'redeeming factor' and don't feel helping others is necessary.

Well you can't exactly say that they are cristian. That's not what is called a true cristian. Maybe they belive in Jusus, but they aren't exactly following his teachings.

I've also seen Atheists that would give their coat to a hobo on a cold winter day - one of those Atheists was me admittedly but whatever.

That's true. Still, cristians do it more often than atheists.

Maybe they belive in Jusus, but they aren't exactly following his teachings.

Believing in and worshiping him is all that is required for one to be identified as 'christian'. Whether or not one lives by the principles or not has no bearing. Belief is all that is needed, and belief they have. The fact is that they claim to be christian, they identify as such, and profess all of the required beliefs.

But the theists position is illogical and unsupported by evidence.

Again, I think this conflating the notions of illogical and irrational. To try to show theism itself to be illogical just can't be done in any interesting way. It does not go against any standardly accepted rules of logic. If it does, I'd love to hear which ones.

I can think of many points in theistic beliefs that do just that.

Maybe you're also conflating theism with particular varieties of theism, e.g., Christianity. You may be able to show within a large system of beliefs like Christians have, that there are some inconsistent statements.

What supporting evidence do they have?

You and I might not accept the kind of evidence that theists of all kinds give for their specific beliefs. Many Christians, for example, see evidence of God's presence and love everywhere in the world. And this is something I think many of them do truly feel.
Yes, I realize there's more to this than what I'm presenting. There are problems of question begging abound. But if we just deny this evidence out of hand, we're not doing ourselves any favors. The conversation has to meet somewhere in the middle.

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.

You're getting to be a little Mr. Snippy Pants. You've seen me on here enough to know that I don't need to be talked down to like that. I don't often toss around things that I know nothing about without some kind of caveat. But hey, you must know everything. Except that a straw-man isn't a logical fallacy - it's an informal fallacy. You don't violate any laws of logic by straw manning someone.
But more to the point, it is a straw man because you do have to attribute some specific version of theism to get anything close to a logical contradiction. All the theism has to accept is that there is some kind of deity - whether physical or spiritual. The results of the assent to that belief vary widely.
But since you know so much about logic and are such an expert on theism, tell me: where is this logical inconsistency that is so obviously present.

Theism is based on circular logic. Theism is true because their books say it is true.

What the hell are you talking about? Whose books? Are you talking about religion now, or theism? It sounds an awful lot like you're talking about religion.

There is no confirming evidence outside of this.

A lot of people would just disagree with you here. And really, what good is an argument with an unsound premise? Honestly, the work you'd have to do to actually defend this premise - I just don't think it can be done. At least not in any philosophically interesting way.

Being that the authority of theistic faith is derived from a logical fallacy it is by definition illogical.

What logical fallacy? Are you talking about circular reasoning? Because yet again, you seem to not understand what these informal fallacies are. It might be poor reasoning, but it does not generate a contradiction.


Look, I'm just trying to play devil's advocate here. I don't think it's much to at least grant that some theists (even Christians) have justification for their beliefs. You can be justified in a false belief. I had justification for Santa Claus being real - lots of it. But my belief was still false, and it sucked when I found out.
I think I've explained my position as well as I can. Honestly, I would love to see an argument that draws some logical contradiction within theistic belief - but I just don't think it's going to happen. It's just tough to argue that something isn't the case.

The actual philosophy and logic behind all this is really the only thing about the debate that interests me. We can just crawl up each others' butts and tell each other how smart we all are for being good atheists. Or we could challenge our own thinking, like we encourage theists of all kinds to do.