Why atheism is wrong (from a Christian perspective) [ATHEISTS ONLY]

Zombrex

Dades wrote: »

Actually in hindsight - a flawed belief could be one you hold in contradiction to what the logic process has unearthed.

well I actually said flaws in a belief. I would be very surprised if someone said there are no flaws in any of the beliefs they hold. That to me would strike as unfounded arrogance. But just because there are flaws in ones belief doesn't mean it is wrong to hold that belief.

For example I believe my bus is going to turn up at lunch time to take me to lunch. The flaw in that is that there are million things that could stop that happening. I still believe it though, because I consider them unlikely. But I certain wouldn't say there are no flaws in my belief and I'm 100% certain .

Perhaps "flaw" is the wrong word here, but the point I'm trying to get across is that everyone should recognize and consider the reasons why they could be wrong, even if at the end of that process you still hold on to your belief.

kelly1

I suggest:

1. natural instruments/senses can't detect the supernatural. Only what is supernatural (e.g. the spirit) can "detect" the supernatural (e.g. spirit).

2. Why do we have more matter than anti-matter in the universe if the universe came from nothing.

3. Science doesn't know how life began, how DNA came about. I'm talking about abiogenesis and not evolution.

4. Nobody can declare with any conviction that God doesn't exist. There is no proof of this. One needs to extract ones head from the sand and explore the possibility and not discount out of hand the witness of those who have experienced God first hand. They can't all be mad!

5. Why is man the only rational being with a seemingly built-in need to find and worship some being greater than himself?

6. How do thoughts and ideas come from physical material, regardless of its complexity? Is brain activity the thought itself or an effect produced by the thought?

CerebralCortex

kelly1 wrote: »

...4. Nobody can declare with any conviction that God doesn't exist. There is no proof of this. One needs to extract ones head from the sand and explore the possibility and not discount out of hand the witness of those who have experienced God first hand. They can't all be mad!....

Is that true though? I mean I can say with clear conviction that Zeus doesn't exist and I can say Yaweh doesn't exist with clear conviction. Or am I wrong? I take offense on being told my head is in the sand.

kelly1 wrote: »

They can't all be mad!

Why not? Depends on your definition of madness really doesn't it?

kelly1

That's not really in keeping the spirit of this thread, is it? I'm talking about the possibility of an ultimate being, the source of everything. I don't think it's logically possible to have multiple gods because you have to ask how did they get there in the first place? Isn't it absurd to think that multiple equal gods exist eternally? How would there be any harmony? Too many cooks etc. Not a very thorough argument I know, but something to chew on.

calahans

kelly1 wrote: »

I suggest:

1. natural instruments/senses can't detect the supernatural. Only what is supernatural (e.g. the spirit) can "detect" the supernatural (e.g. spirit).

Not really. I presume I have a spirit but I can't detect the supernatural.

kelly1 wrote: »

2. Why do we have more matter than anti-matter in the universe if the universe came from nothing.

3. Science doesn't know how life began, how DNA came about. I'm talking about abiogenesis and not evolution.

Fair points

kelly1 wrote: »

4. Nobody can declare with any conviction that God doesn't exist. There is no proof of this. One needs to extract ones head from the sand and explore the possibility and not discount out of hand the witness of those who have experienced God first hand. They can't all be mad!

This is more of a personal belief than any kind of argument.

kelly1 wrote: »

5. Why is man the only rational being with a seemingly built-in need to find and worship some being greater than himself?

Well to be fair man is the only self aware being we can communicate with. Maybe if we meet aliens that dont believe in God we can investigate this.

kelly1 wrote: »

6. How do thoughts and ideas come from physical material, regardless of its complexity? Is brain activity the thought itself or an effect produced by the thought?

Fair point

TheBigLebowski

kelly1 wrote: »

That's not really in keeping the spirit of this thread, is it?

So have you got anything to say that is in the spirit of this thread? All I see is you defending your own beliefs. Have you any logical arguments against Christianity or are they just too numerous to even start?

CerebralCortex

kelly1 wrote: »

That's not really in keeping the spirit of this thread, is it? I'm talking about the possibility of an ultimate being, the source of everything. I don't think it's logically possible to have multiple gods because you have to ask how did they get there in the first place? Isn't it absurd to think that multiple equal gods exist eternally? How would there be any harmony? Too many cooks etc. Not a very thorough argument I know, but something to chew on.

I guess its not.

kelly1 wrote: »

I don't think it's logically possible to have multiple gods because you have to ask how did they get there in the first place? Isn't it absurd to think that multiple equal gods exist eternally? How would there be any harmony? Too many cooks etc. Not a very thorough argument I know, but something to chew on.

Where is the absurdity? Why couldn't there be harmony(which is a human idea)? God might decide he'd like to split himself in two. Would you be able to ask him for me? What does the holy trinity imply or should I just resign myself to mystery? Actually its mystery that makes it difficult to be purely atheist and extremely difficult to be a Christian.

Zombrex

Guys seriously, not the purpose of this thread. This is not a thread to defend atheism against the very posts the thread is inviting. What part of that concept is not understood?

Kelly has put forward some good points, on invitation from myself. Either expand on these points within the context of the thread or leave it. Do not counter the points unless you are expanding on them as even more reason why atheism is wrong.

I'm defending this thread on the Christian forum against charges that leopards can't change their spots, and I really hope we can all get on the same page.

Zombrex

TheBigLebowski wrote: »

So have you got anything to say that is in the spirit of this thread? All I see is you defending your own beliefs. Have you any logical arguments against Christianity or are they just too numerous to even start?

Logical arguments against Christianity is not the purpose of this thread. Kelly is doing exactly what he was asked to do by me, and I started this thread.

CerebralCortex

Wicknight wrote: »

Logical arguments against Christianity is not the purpose of this thread. Kelly is doing exactly what he was asked to do by me, and I started this thread.

I'm sorry its just so difficult other than saying "Christianity has a flawless explanation for my existence". I really don't know what else to say other than that.

stereoroid

Wicknight wrote: »

Logical arguments against Christianity is not the purpose of this thread. Kelly is doing exactly what he was asked to do by me, and I started this thread.

Didn't you also specify "Atheists Only"? If so, why do you accept Kelly1's proselytizing here?

This is just not going to work. As an atheist, I can not genuinely write anything from a Christian perspective. Even when I was a kid, and nominally Catholic (because my mother was Catholic), I don't remember being anything like the Christians I see posting here. :mad:

I can try to imagine being there, but I am still limited to the anti-atheist arguments that I have previously heard and dismissed. I don't see how I (or any atheist) can be expected to provide you with genuinely new ammunition to use against us. (That is what you're after, isn't it - anti-atheist ammo?)

kelly1

Stereoroid, I think Wicknight is only asking you to explore loopholes in the atheist argument. Sounds like a scientific/rational approach to me.

CerebralCortex

Yes. The only thing I can come up with is that we should a least be agnostic.

CerebralCortex

kelly1 wrote: »

Stereoroid, I think Wicknight is only asking you to explore loopholes in the atheist argument. Sounds like a scientific/rational approach to me.

I think you'd have to suggest a loophole to get us started.

calahans

Wicknight wrote: »

Guys seriously, not the purpose of this thread. This is not a thread to defend atheism against the very posts the thread is inviting. What part of that concept is not understood?

Kelly has put forward some good points, on invitation from myself. Either expand on these points within the context of the thread or leave it. Do not counter the points unless you are expanding on them as even more reason why atheism is wrong.

I'm defending this thread on the Christian forum against charges that leopards can't change their spots, and I really hope we can all get on the same page.

I think there is a flaw in what you are trying to achieve, or at least the way in which you are trying to achieve it. If you are trying to get atheists to attack what they believe by putting up counter arguments that is fine, but this will not get anywhere unless there is a debate about the points. You say to run with something even if you dont agree - so does that mean that we have post after post agreeing/expanding on a point which no one posting believes in?!?

BrianCalgary

calahans wrote: »

I think there is a flaw in what you are trying to achieve, or at least the way in which you are trying to achieve it. If you are trying to get atheists to attack what they believe by putting up counter arguments that is fine, but this will not get anywhere unless there is a debate about the points. You say to run with something even if you dont agree - so does that mean that we have post after post agreeing/expanding on a point which no one posting believes in?!?

Why does everything have to be an argument? Why can't you have an exchange of information?

I applaud wicknight for this thread. It has got me thinking the other way, the flaws in Christianity, that is.

iUseVi

It's not really working like I expected. At first I thought it would be a good idea - an exercise in thinking about things from someone else's position.

But I don't really find anything convincing. I can think of avenues of discussion but they all end up with me being just as convinced as I was before.

I suppose I've learned that there really are not any doubts in my mind, nor apparently for most other atheists here. (Thanks Wicknight:p) I know this thread is not meant for atheists to say how great they are, but seriously, we ran out of ideas pretty fast.

Dave!

How about a thread about why theism is wrong? We don't have enough of those

stereoroid

kelly1 wrote: »

Stereoroid, I think Wicknight is only asking you to explore loopholes in the atheist argument. Sounds like a scientific/rational approach to me.

Well then, what loopholes? I've seen other posts on this forum, and we know there are webpages out there, pointing out "the flaws in atheism", but all seem to me start with a fundamental misunderstanding of what atheism is. Do I have to re-state the basics? Maybe I do:

To me it is very simple: it is a lack of belief in Theistic gods. In that sense, it is a reaction to Theism: it is "not Theism". So, what is Theism? I am not a Theist, so I'm not going to tell a Theist what he or she believes*, but I think the start of the Wikipedia article is reasonable:

Theism is the belief in the existence of one or more divinities or deities . There is also a narrower sense in which theism refers to the belief that one or more divinities are immanent in the world, yet transcend it, along with the idea that divinity(s) is/are omniscient, omnipotent and omnipresent.

That is what I don't believe. That is atheism. That is all atheists have in common: anything more is personal, and beyond the definition. It does not claim 100% certainty that any particular god does not exist, it does not close the door to future possibilities, as we learn more about the universe. If you can see a loophole in that, please point it out. Oh, and don't bother with arguments from "personal experience", such as "I can see", or "I have faith", because I don't see what you do, and I don't have faith, and I'm not going to get those in response to anything said by people - because people can, and do, say anything to justify their beliefs.

It really is that simple, and if you want to try complicate it further, you're on your own. That is the mistake these anti-atheist sites and lists make: they're attacking the straw men erected by priests and mullahs, that atheists are evil, they deny the Christian God, are immoral, and so on - none of which are part of the basic definition of atheism: lack of theistic belief.

* theists take note: please stop telling atheists what atheism is, or what we believe. Not being atheists yourselves, you are not qualified to lecture us on what atheism is and is not. I'm not Irish, though I have lived here for 8 years; assuming you're Irish, how would you react if I tried lecturing you on what you think? Ow. :eek:

Dades

I appreciate this is a mirror image of another discussion, but this thread is just bizarre.

I have to say I have given it some thought, and the only flaw I've seen is that some atheists talk in terms of "proofs" and "definites" - i.e. that the truth is 100%: No Gods.

Those atheists are wrong though.

Atheism is just a conclusion that should be open to change. We go to great lengths to establish that it is not a religion, and now we're trying to do a direct comparison.

Zombrex

calahans wrote: »

so does that mean that we have post after post agreeing/expanding on a point which no one posting believes in?!?

Yes. The point is to challenge you, not others around you. It is an exercise.

Man alive, have none of you ever done debating where you have been given a topic that you don't agree with and been asked to argue for it?

I've never done formal debating with all those rules and stuff (all that is a bit silly), but we used to do that type of thing a lot of the school I went to. The teacher would bring up a topic and ask someone which side they supported. If you said "Side X miss" she would say "Right, 3 page essay on why side Y is correct"

So, Atheism is wrong, Christianity is correct, 3 page essay.

Convince me. Or don't. You don't have to post here. But can we all stop littering the thread with pointless "This is stupid" comments

Zombrex

stereoroid wrote: »

Didn't you also specify "Atheists Only"? If so, why do you accept Kelly1's proselytizing here?

Did you read the opening post on the thread? :pac:

iUseVi

Wicknight wrote: »

Yes. The point is to challenge you, not others around you. It is an exercise.

Man alive, have none of you ever done debating where you have been given a topic that you don't agree with and been asked to argue for it?

I've never done formal debating with all those rules and stuff (all that is a bit silly), but we used to do that type of thing a lot of the school I went to. The teacher would bring up a topic and ask someone which side they supported. If you said "Side X miss" she would say "Right, 3 page essay on why side Y is correct"

This is slightly different. It's more like: "side Y, have faith in something you can't see or touch". That is the main argument the Christians use. You can't just fake that.

(Yeah, I know I was all in support for this thread at the beginning, but I hadn't really thought it through.)

kelly1

CerebralCortex wrote: »

I think you'd have to suggest a loophole to get us started.

See post #33.

Zombrex

iUseVi wrote: »

This is slightly different. It's more like: "side Y, have faith in something you can't see or touch". That is the main argument the Christians use. You can't just fake that.

You see that is the thing. I'm pretty certain if you ask any of the regular Christian posters on the Christianity forum, such as Brian, PDN, Wolfsbane, Kelly or Jimi, they would say that is not the main argument Christians use in the support of the position they are correct.

If we don't understand their arguments how can we expect them to entertain debate with us?

stereoroid

Wicknight wrote: »

Did you read the opening post on the thread? :pac:

Did you not read what Kelly1 has been writing? Go back and compare that to what your request says. All I see in his posts are more "straw man" tactics of the sort he's tried before.

I also read your second post, which has no basis in reality, and doesn't match what you ask for in the first post. Is that what you actually think? If I'm supposed to "run with that"... how? I'd look like Wile E Coyote, just after he runs off the edge of a cliff. There's nothing there to "run with". :rolleyes:

kelly1

stereoroid wrote: »

Well then, what loopholes? I've seen other posts on this forum, and we know there are webpages out there, pointing out "the flaws in atheism", but all seem to me start with a fundamental misunderstanding of what atheism is.

Basically I think agnosticism is the more honest and realistic stance. No atheist can say for certain that God doesn't exist so it more honest to admit the possibility of the Creator. Atheism at the end of the day is only a belief, not based on any evidence. So I say agnosticism is the more logical/scientific view.

Zombrex

stereoroid wrote: »

There's nothing there to "run with". :rolleyes:

Then don't post anything

CerebralCortex

kelly1 wrote: »

See post #33.

I suppose I could hold onto point 3 and then maybe say that the Christian God would fit nicely into that. What do you think?

Point 5 is an uncertainty for me.

iUseVi

Wicknight wrote: »

You see that is the thing. I'm pretty certain if you ask any of the regular Christian posters on the Christianity forum, such as Brian, PDN, Wolfsbane, Kelly or Jimi, they would say that is not the main argument Christians use in the support of the position they are correct.

If we don't understand their arguments how can we expect them to entertain debate with us?

Ok, this may be the case. But I can't think of any convincing arguments (obviously.) And if you are honest neither can you really, else you wouldn't be an atheist.....