The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)

Sam Vimes

Jakkass wrote: »

Well, I've called nonsense on this now, because other atheists have put forward arguments supporting their position.

Such as...
And are these arguments or evidence?

Jakkass wrote: »

Why isn't the Judeo-Christian God compelling and / or appealing to you?

That's pretty much the same question. The Judeo-christian god isn't more compelling because there is nothing to make it more compelling. If I was going to believe in anyone's miraculous powers it would be one of the ones alive today that I can go and see for myself.

Jakkass wrote: »

I call nonsense on this. There must be some issue you have with the Bible if you have not become a Christian. I may as well alter the question slightly.

Why isn't the Bible compelling and / or appealing to you?

It's not an issue I specifically have with the bible, it's that there's nothing that makes it stand out as more likely to be true than any of the others

Jakkass wrote: »

Right. Again, it seems that you're being particular about the question.

Why isn't the idea of a Creator, compelling and / or appealing to you?

And please give answers of some substance, I've patiently waded through your questions in the past. If we truly are to believe in the Golden Rule, it's about time that you considered mine

It is appealing to me, very appealing. I have the same compulsion to see purpose in everything that you do. But just because an idea is appealing to me doesn't make it true. If common sense was reliable we wouldn't need science at all. Even if an idea appeals to me it must still be demonstrated

Jakkass wrote: »

I've changed the questions. That's nonsense because it isn't arguing for atheism at all. It's no more arguing for Judaism, or Islam. Why should I become an atheist after hearing your attempt to discredit it?

you calling nonsense on my position doesn't make it nonsense. That is my position and I'm not going to try to make arguments for positions that I do not hold so that you can give your stock "generic creator" type arguments against them. I am telling you my position, either argue against it or don't but you can't just demand that I straw man my own position because it doesn't fit with your preconception of what my position should be. I am an atheist because I see no compelling evidence that singles out one religion as any more likely to be true than any other. It's pretty much as simple as that

philologos

You think somehow that if you can criticise Christianity that it makes atheism more reasonable. It doesn't at all in the slightest. Why should I be bothered with that if it isn't going to lead us into a proper discussion?

You're effectively exempting yourself from showing how your position is any more reasonable.

Zombrex

Jakkass wrote: »

You think somehow that if you can criticise Christianity that it makes atheism more reasonable.

Not sure if that was directed at me or Sam, but from my position at least, no I think if you criticize Christian in a particular way (ie criticizing it in the context of belief in supernatural claims) you make agnostism more reasonable.

To get from there to atheism I think requires a competing argument, that shift the position from "I don't know why people believe what they believe" to "Ah this is a better explanation for why they believe what they believe"

Jakkass wrote: »

Why should I be bothered with that if it isn't going to lead us into a proper discussion?

Well you are straw manning some what what the "proper discussion" is though.

Jakkass wrote: »

You're effectively exempting yourself from showing how your position is any more reasonable.

As I said I'm perfectly happy to explain why I feel atheism is a reasonable and supported position (though as Sam has already pointed out your specific questions are wide of the mark)

But the very fact that you require a more reasonable position in order to look critically at your own position is the issue here, I feel at least.

Sam Vimes

Jakkass wrote: »

You think somehow that if you can criticise Christianity that it makes atheism more reasonable. It doesn't at all in the slightest. Why should I be bothered with that if it isn't going to lead us into a proper discussion?

You're effectively exempting yourself from showing how your position is any more reasonable.

My position is that it is not reasonable to accept christianity or any other specific religion because even if a god exists, none of these religions have demonstrated themselves to be true. Maybe other atheists have other positions but that is my position. The only way for me to argue my position is to criticise your position. If your position is not reasonable then my position is by definition reasonable, since my position is simply that your position is not reasonable

You want me to try to argue that there is no god because that position allows you to use your generic creator arguments against it. That's what you call a proper discussion because then it comes down to theoretical arguments and philosophy. Sorry mate but that's not my position. My position is that no one religion has successfully demonstrated its case and I argue it by criticising their cases

philologos

What do you mean by demonstrated? What is the standard of demonstrated here?

Wicknight wrote:

To get from there to atheism I think requires a competing argument, that shift the position from "I don't know why people believe what they believe" to "Ah this is a better explanation for why they believe what they believe"

That really to me isn't a core argument for the merits of atheism. The way Sam is talking, he is effectively saying that it is unreasonable to ask "Why atheism?" and get a decent answer as to why atheism stands or falls on its own merits rather than merely criticising another faith. Criticising the cases doesn't matter, it doesn't bring us nearer to atheism or demonstrate it's merits.

Sam Vimes

Jakkass wrote: »

That really to me isn't a core argument for the merits of atheism. The way Sam is talking, he is effectively saying that it is unreasonable to ask "Why atheism?" and get a decent answer as to why atheism stands or falls on its own merits rather than merely criticising another faith. Criticising the cases doesn't matter, it doesn't bring us nearer to atheism or demonstrate it's merits.

Why atheism?

Because not theism. If I can argue that theism is not reasonable, then the only reasonable position is to lack theism, ie atheism.

philologos

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Why atheism?

Because not theism. If I can argue that theism is not reasonable, then the only reasonable position is to lack theism, ie atheism.

If all theism is unreasonable, perhaps. However, you haven't even demonstrated that Christianity is unreasonable yet, and even if you do, there are still a lot of options other than atheism. I've made clear that even if this happens, one could go to their nearest synagogue and ask to become Jewish, or go to their nearest Mosque and say the Shahadah.

I'm not even sure that if anyone did successfully debunk Christianity that this would automatically mean that I would turn to atheism, particularly not of your kind.

Either 1) You're going to disprove / debunk all of the worlds religions.
or
2) You're going to demonstrate why atheism is a better option above and beyond the rest.

2 is a lot more pragmatic than 1 as a methodology.

Sam Vimes

Jakkass wrote: »

If all theism is unreasonable, perhaps.

Thank you, you have just conceded my point

Jakkass wrote: »

However, you haven't even demonstrated that Christianity is unreasonable yet, and even if you do, there are still a lot of options other than atheism. I've made clear that even if this happens, one could go to their nearest synagogue and ask to become Jewish, or go to their nearest Mosque and say the Shahadah.

I'm not even sure that if anyone did successfully debunk Christianity that this would automatically mean that I would turn to atheism, particularly not of your kind.

Either 1) You're going to disprove / debunk all of the worlds religions.
or
2) You're going to demonstrate why atheism is a better option above and beyond the rest.

2 is a lot more pragmatic than 1 as a methodology.

This is again your misunderstanding of atheism. Atheism is not another religion which has to make its case, it is a lack of religion. The way to argue for atheism is to argue that no specific brand of theism has successfully made its case.

It is not up to me to show that christianity is unreasonable or that all religions are unreasonable, it is up to each religion to make its case. If they cannot demonstrate themselves to be reasonable above all others, their hypothesis fails. It might still be right but if it cannot be demonstrated to be right there is no reason to accept it. Someone can turn to Judaism if they want but it has not made its case any more than christianity. In fact if anyone has to show that another position is unreasonable its christianity, you have to show that your religion more reasonable than every other religion in the world.

In short Jakkass, if no one religion can demonstrate itself to be a better option above and beyond the rest then the only logical position is not to accept any of them

philologos

It's not another religion, but it is a position. This position has to be justified beyond criticising Christianity. Criticising Christianity can actually have a multitude of different outcomes. This is why it's lazy. You can't expect people to automatically view atheism as more reasonable when you criticise miracles or some other aspect of Christianity.

Zombrex

Jakkass wrote: »

That really to me isn't a core argument for the merits of atheism.

There are no merits of atheism

There are though merits of proper critical thinking and having standards of epistemology.

Atheism is a conclusion, not a belief system. Being an atheist doesn't make you a better person. Being an atheist because you hold to certain standards of epistemology does. But that has little to do with the atheism and everything to do with the critical thinking. You could swap out atheism with rejecting astrology or voodoo and the point would hold equally well.

It is like saying what are the merits of believing the Earth goes around the Sun. There are no merits to this belief, it is just a factual conclusion.

But the critical process used to arrive at this conclusion is very valuable.

philologos

I'm not getting this reluctance to put forward a positive argument for "Why atheism?" when a lot of atheists have done similar in the past. Why is it that you aren't willing to put forward your position and have it criticised like everyone else?

If atheism didn't stand or fall on its own merit why on earth would people be atheists?

In the sun example - the factual conclusion is actually the merit of holding the view.

Sam Vimes

Jakkass wrote: »

It's not another religion, but it is a position. This position has to be justified beyond criticising Christianity. Criticising Christianity can actually have a multitude of different outcomes. This is why it's lazy. You can't expect people to automatically view atheism as more reasonable when you criticise miracles or some other aspect of Christianity.

Yes actually I can. Christians might have arguments to try to support their case but if I can show each of these arguments to be fallacious I can make it so they have no more reason to believe in the christian god than in The Great Ju Ju under the sea. At that point they can then go and look at another religion but before doing so they have to ask themselves if the very same arguments can be used against it and in most cases they can. For example if I criticise miracles, that calls into question the miracles of every religion. If you have realised that there is no compelling reason to accept the miracle stories of christianity, why should you accept those of any other religion?

philologos

No you can't :pac:

Why shouldn't I consider Judaism, Islam, or any other world religion if they aren't convinced that Christianity isn't true? They could go and assess these instead.

Sam, you haven't shown any Christian belief to be fallacious in your entire history on boards. That's merely fact, because if you had you might just have convinced some of the Christians of your position.

Doing this doesn't make atheism any better, or any more feasible. It's absolute nonsense to suggest so.

I'm not interested in a one sided argument anymore because it's absolutely lazy on your part. The charter doesn't particularly agree with it either.

Zombrex

Jakkass wrote: »

I'm not getting this reluctance to put forward a positive argument for "Why atheism?" when a lot of atheists have done similar in the past. Why is it that you aren't willing to put forward your position and have it criticised like everyone else?

If atheism didn't stand or fall on its own merit why on earth would people be atheists?

In the sun example - the factual conclusion is actually the merit of holding the view.

Because you are straw manning the point with this notion of "positive atheism"

It is comments like this in the other thread from Soul Winner

Until you can give a valid natural explanation that explains all these facts then Christianity will always hold down its own patch on this earth.

that make atheists cautious about getting into a debate framed by the theists idea that you demonstrate atheism by demonstrate a much more convincing explanation based on the rules already deployed by theists.

This miss the point that the rules of what is or is not convincing deployed by theists are fundamentally flawed.

The cruxification is a perfect example because Christians always say My theory explains what happened I want you to present a better explanation or I'm going to hold on to this explanation and that is perfectly valid and rational.

Non-believers then get draw into this very silly argument of trying to make up alternative explanations in an effort to convince Christians (that are all dismissed by Christians as just conjector) when the point is actually that there is little to support the claim that the Christian explanation is accurate.

Time is far better spend explaining why believe in the supernatural ressurection is based on faulty reasoning than trying to guess at alternative explanations.

The question isn't "Why atheism"

The question is "Why critical thinking"

philologos

Wicknight wrote: »

Because you are straw manning the point with this notion of "positive atheism"

How? Atheists have been putting forward positive arguments for their positions for years. I've given you clear examples of this in the Philosophy of Religion, The Logical Argument to the Problem of Evil (Epicurean), and the Evidentialist (noseeum) argument to the Problem of Evil.

Negative atheism is a relatively new phenomenon. Now, how on earth is it strawmanning atheism when I can give you clear evidence of atheists making positive arguments for their position?

Wicknight wrote: »

It is comments like this in the other thread from Soul Winner

Until you can give a valid natural explanation that explains all these facts then Christianity will always hold down its own patch on this earth.

Soul Winner can explain himself. It isn't my role to explain his comments.

Wicknight wrote: »

that make atheists cautious about getting into a debate framed by the theists idea that you demonstrate atheism by demonstrate a much more convincing explanation based on the rules already deployed by theists.

Let's be frank Wicknight. The atheists on this forum like the easy option of criticising someone else putting forward a positive position without them putting forward their own.

Wicknight wrote: »

This miss the point that the rules of what is or is not convincing deployed by theists are fundamentally flawed.

To expect a decent argument that stands or falls on it's own merit rather than being dependant on criticising another position isn't that much to ask.

Wicknight wrote: »

The cruxification is a perfect example because Christians always say My theory explains what happened I want you to present a better explanation or I'm going to hold on to this explanation and that is perfectly valid and rational.

This is getting into criticising the Christian position rather than justifying your own position.

Wicknight wrote: »

Non-believers then get draw into this very silly argument of trying to make up alternative explanations in an effort to convince Christians (that are all dismissed by Christians as just conjector) when the point is actually that there is little to support the claim that the Christian explanation is accurate.

Time is far better spend explaining why believe in the supernatural ressurection is based on faulty reasoning than trying to guess at alternative explanations.

I don't think this is entirely unreasonable. We have a situation where X happened. Someone puts across some possible reason for why X happened. If one is to dismiss it that is fine, but an alternative should be required in order to properly explain X. That's normal.

Wicknight wrote: »

The question isn't "Why atheism"

The question is "Why critical thinking"

Nonsense. This assumes that critical thinking will always lead to atheism, when in reality research and assessment can lead in multiple directions. We still have the problem why atheism over Judaism, or atheism over Islam.

It would be much more pragmatic to put an argument forward as to why atheism in general.

Discussion isn't worth having unless you are willing to put forward your own case for atheism to make it balanced. I say this because the Q&A format is just ridiculous and needs to be looked at again.

I mean this thread alone is an example of how tedious it can become.

Sam Vimes

Let's put it this way Jakkass:

Believers have an emotional connection to their chosen religion. This is what allows them to overlook the fact that there is little to no supporting evidence for the miracle stories. But they have no emotional connection to any other religions so they can look at them objectively and see them for what they are: little more than claims and you don't believe someone just because they claim something. I don't have to convince a believer that every other religion in the world is false because they already believe them to be false.

My job as an atheist is to make a believer realise that when viewed objectively there is pretty much no difference in terms of strength of evidence between their chosen religion and any of the ones they already believe to be false. To any objective observer, being able to talk to over a million living witnesses and being able to personally fly over to a supposed miracle worker and actually see him perform miracles for yourself is unimaginably more compelling than an old story in a book but you don't have an emotional connection to any of those people so you can see them for what they are. I'm trying to break the emotional connection that you have with your one chosen religion, to look at it objectively the way you look at other religions and realise that the resurrection is just another story and is no more likely to be true than any other supernatural claim

philologos

I don't have to convince a believer that every other religion in the world is false because they already believe them to be false.

Ah come on Sam, this isn't good enough. They don't believe that there isn't a God / isn't likely to be a God either.

My job as an atheist is to make a believer realise that when viewed objectively there is pretty much no difference in terms of strength of evidence between their chosen religion and any of the ones they already believe to be false.

Is it? I don't think this is your job at all as an atheist. There is no requirement in doing this. For the Christian, there is the responsibility to share the good news of Christianity though.

Sam Vimes

Jakkass wrote: »

Ah come on Sam, this isn't good enough. They don't believe that there isn't a God / isn't likely to be a God either.

I don't believe that there isn't a god either and I'm open to convincing on whether it's likely or not. But if I show that there is no reasonable way to pick one religion over another what difference does it make if there is a god? What good is a god that you can't know anything about, meaning you have to arbitrarily pick a religion and develop an emotional connection to it? What good is god if you have no way of being sure whether it's the Church of Ireland interpretation of the christian god or the great Ju Ju under the sea?

Jakkass wrote: »

Is it? I don't think this is your job at all as an atheist. There is no requirement in doing this. For the Christian, there is the responsibility to share the good news of Christianity though.

Missed the point there and I think you know you know you did. Belief in religion effects my life so I feel compelled to point out its logical flaws

philologos

Sam Vimes wrote: »

What good is god if you have no way of being sure whether it's the Church of Ireland interpretation of the christian god or the great Ju Ju under the sea?

Over emphasising difference between Christian denominations. I'm actually in at the very worst 90% agreement with Christians on this forum. I also share opinions with many outside of the CofI, and I also disagree with a few in the CofI.

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Missed the point there and I think you know you know you did. Belief in religion effects my life so I feel compelled to point out its logical flaws

As long as there are Christians there will be some influence of Christianity on society at large. Do you really want to purge Christianity from our society though?

Sam Vimes

Jakkass, I suppose you could say that I'm arguing for ignosticism, the theological position that every other theological position (including agnosticism) assumes too much about the concept of God. Whether there is a god or not is irrelevant if you cannot know its nature with any objective level of certainty.

Whether people believe in some form of god or not is not the problem. Ignostics, deists and the like don't try to tell me who I can marry or anything else about how they think I should live my life based on an unknown authority, they don't hinder science and they don't waste their lives dedicated to a concept that is objectively no more likely to be true than the great Ju Ju under the sea.

And those types of people are just fine with me.

Sam Vimes

Jakkass wrote: »

Over emphasising difference between Christian denominations. I'm actually in at the very worst 90% agreement with Christians on this forum. I also share opinions with many outside of the CofI, and I also disagree with a few in the CofI.

So what? 90% is not 100%. Either your understanding of god is demonstrably right or there is no more reason to accept it than any other religious idea.

Jakkass wrote: »

As long as there are Christians there will be some influence of Christianity on society at large. Do you really want to purge Christianity from our society though?

No I don't, I want people to realise that accepting christianity is no more rational than accepting any other religious idea up to and including the great Ju Ju under the sea and stop living their lives based on the authority of a first century document. I would never try to purge anything, since purging implies force.

Zombrex

Jakkass wrote: »

How? Atheists have been putting forward positive arguments for their positions for years. I've given you clear examples of this in the Philosophy of Religion, The Logical Argument to the Problem of Evil (Epicurean), and the Evidentialist (noseeum) argument to the Problem of Evil.

Negative atheism is a relatively new phenomenon. Now, how on earth is it strawmanning atheism when I can give you clear evidence of atheists making positive arguments for their position?

Differentiating between "positive" and "negative" atheism and casting negative atheism as well negative is straw manning.

Positive and negative atheism as you call it is all part of the same argument.

If you cannot see the issue with theistic faith you are never going to see the "merits" of atheism.

That is the advantage of supernatural faith, everything can be explained using "God did it". Literally everything.

It is only when you realise you have no proper basis for such an explanation can you look around at alternative explanations, which can lead to atheism.

This thread is a classic example of this. No matter what scientific evidence is presented to JC or Wolfsbane the response is always the same, God did it that way for what ever reason and you can't prove otherwise. Star light from galaxies billions of light years away. Well God did. Evidence from radio carbon dating. Well God did it.

God did it answers everything, and if someone genuinely believes that this is a solid rational foundation for what they believe then talking to them about the case for atheism is some what pointless, because "God did it" trumps "We think we have an accurate theory but we obviously can't know for sure"

There is no point trying to convince someone of atheism is they are starting from the position of faith in a supernatural being because a supernatural being who can do anything he wants can be used to explain anything

Jakkass wrote: »

Let's be frank Wicknight. The atheists on this forum like the easy option of criticising someone else putting forward a positive position without them putting forward their own.

There are plenty of threads that put forward the case for atheism, a few on this forum (though I think you agree this forum isn't the perfectly place for them and plenty of the A&A forum)

Jakkass wrote: »

This is getting into criticising the Christian position rather than justifying your own position.

My own position involves criticism of the Christian (supernatural faith) position.

If I though you guys had solid rational verifiable reasons for believing God exists and is as the Bible described them I, nor anyone else, would not be an atheist.

Jakkass wrote: »

I don't think this is entirely unreasonable. We have a situation where X happened. Someone puts across some possible reason for why X happened. If one is to dismiss it that is fine, but an alternative should be required in order to properly explain X. That's normal.

But you don't need to properly explain X in order to see that faith in another explanation is flawed, that is the point.

It is like waking up in the morning to see that a tree has fallen over. Your neighbor says to you "Oh an elephant must have pushed that over"

You reply - Not sure how you can claim that?
Neighbor - Well do you have a better explanation?
You - Well I've no idea what happened here
Neighbor - Thought so! Right, I'm sticking with the elephant explanation it makes sense to me.

See the problem there?

I've no idea what happened at the resurrection and neither do you. I'm happy with that. I don't need a better explanation for me to dismiss the Christian explanation has highly unlikely.

Jakkass wrote: »

Nonsense. This assumes that critical thinking will always lead to atheism, when in reality research and assessment can lead in multiple directions.

Not if you hold to any standards of research and assessment, since no one has ever demonstrated anything remotely supernatural when it comes to religion to any of these standards.

People discard these standards when it comes to religion, even the most eminent scientists and philosophers.

Jakkass wrote: »

We still have the problem why atheism over Judaism, or atheism over Islam.

Because neither Judaism or Islam can demonstrate that they are accurate to any proper standards. Again you get people believing them only when they discard standards of epistemology

Jakkass wrote: »

Discussion isn't worth having unless you are willing to put forward your own case for atheism to make it balanced.

The case for atheism starts with the standards I mentioned above, and the flaws in theistic belief for not putting the faith up to these standards.

You really can't start anywhere else. If you think that the reasons you accept the resurrection are sound, or think that your personal assessment that your prayers are being answers is valid, you are never going to be an atheist.

If you won't seriously listen and consider the discussion as to why they aren't then you will never see the flaws in theistic belief, and because belief in a all powerful supernatural deity trumps any other explanation you will therefore never see atheism as an option.

Jakkass wrote: »

I mean this thread alone is an example of how tedious it can become.

This thread demonstrates how pointless it is trying to argue evidence and theory with people who are basing their entire world view on the idea of a supernatural deity that can do anything, because the "God did it" position trumps everything.

Which is the whole point in starting with why believing in the theistic position is flawed is really the only way to ever have a proper discussion.

If you can't see why arguments such as say The resurrection isn't implausible if God exists are deeply flawed then what the is the point of any discussion over things like the resurrection.

You can introduce God to explain anything.

If you cannot get people agreeing on similar standards of epistemology the discussion is doomed to go around and around in circles.

philologos

Positive and negative are both legitimate categories for atheism.

Just type in "define positive atheism" and "define negative atheism" on google. It isn't strawmanning anything in the slightest.

Zombrex

Jakkass wrote: »

Positive and negative are both legitimate categories for atheism.

Just type in "define positive atheism" and "define negative atheism" on google. It isn't strawmanning anything in the slightest.

The only thing I get back when I do that is that positive and weak are sometimes used instead of strong and weak, positive being "I believe there is God" and negative being "I don't believe in God"

Which is little to do with the usage you are using

I've never come across the idea that "negative" atheism is atheism that attacks theism where as "positive" atheism is atheism that presents arguments for why atheism is correct, which is how you seem to be using it.

As I said those too things (attacking theism and supporting atheism) are basically two sides of the same argument.

You can't support atheism without attack theistic belief since atheism is basically a rejection of theistic belief.

philologos

I'm just saying in a nutshell, that disagreeing with Christian argument, doesn't put forward atheism, or even the disbelief in God. A rather simple point I would have thought?

monosharp

Jakkass wrote: »

I'm just saying in a nutshell, that disagreeing with Christian argument, doesn't put forward atheism, or even the disbelief in God. A rather simple point I would have thought?

So basically you believe that every human being alive should be defined by their relationship to your particular set of beliefs ?

Your argument is that the default state of mind is not belief in 'nothing' but belief in something ?

Sam Vimes

Jakkass wrote: »

I'm just saying in a nutshell, that disagreeing with Christian argument, doesn't put forward atheism, or even the disbelief in God. A rather simple point I would have thought?

Oh yeah it's simple alright but it's wrong. I am not an atheist because I believe there is no god, although that is what you and many other theists like to think. I am an atheist because none of the arguments and evidence put forward for any specific religion convince me so that how I present my case.

The generic creator type arguments are irrelevant because they don't argue for a specific religion. A god that exists but cannot be defined with any level of certainty is irrelevant. Unless a specific religion can put forward a compelling case for itself above all others, I don't care whether there's a creator or not. That's why I was able to conduct this discussion with the assumption that there is a god and was still able to argue my case

My case is simply that you can't argue your case and this is shown by your extensive dodging of the question of why you find the word of 12 guys from 2000 years ago more compelling than a million living eye witnesses and the evidence of your own eyes. You can't answer that question beyond declaring that the two situations are different (you have yet to explain why you find one more compelling than the other) so you're trying to shift the burden of evidence onto us by demanding that we argue against an unfalsifiable claim that would not mean your religion was true even if it was conclusively proven. Sorry mate you're the one with the claim, not me, and you have to back it up. And again, a generic creator type claim that can be just as easily applied to the great Ju Ju under the sea as the christian god is irrelevant to this discussion

philologos

I am saying that criticism of Christianity, doesn't necessarily lead people to reject the existence of a God or gods, or religion. This is entirely true.

I'm not arguing as to why Christianity is the most reasonable right now, I'm arguing about the deficiency in your presentation of atheism. It's one option amongst many and it needs to be advocated as such if you want people to become atheists.

Disagreeing with Christianity isn't advocating your position. It's merely disagreeing without substance.

It's not "dodging" it's asking you to answer questions properly, if I am going to do the same.

Sam Vimes

Jakkass wrote: »

I am saying that criticism of Christianity, doesn't necessarily lead people to reject the existence of a God or gods, or religion. This is entirely true.

It doesn't necessarily lead people to reject the existence of the concept of a generic creator no but it does lead them to reject religion, at least one religion, the only religion they have an emotional connection to

Jakkass wrote: »

I'm not arguing as to why Christianity is the most reasonable right now, I'm arguing about the deficiency in your presentation of atheism

You don't seen to be reading my posts at all

As I already said many times, if it can be shown that there is no reasonable way to use any of the world religions to know anything about god you make its existence irrelevant

Jakkass wrote: »

. It's one option amongst many and it needs to be advocated as such if you want people to become atheists.

Saying that over and over again will not make it any more valid. Your repeated efforts to try to make atheism out to be an alternative type of religion won't work. An atheist is what you become by default when you don't find any theistic arguments convincing.

Jakkass wrote: »

Disagreeing with Christianity isn't advocating your position.

But my position is that I disagree with christianity

Jakkass, honestly you need to let go of this straw man, you need to listen to what my actual position is instead of holding onto your preconception of what you think it should be. No matter how much you like to think that atheists all believe there is no god and need to advocate that position, that is not the case. We just don't find your arguments convincing. You can try to belittle that position any way you want but it doesn't make it any less valid or rational

philologos

I'm not making it out to be an alternative religion in the slightest. Rather it is another position amongst many. That's only the truth, if one doesn't want to accept it, that's ones decision.

Banting on about how Christianity is wrong isn't going to bring people exclusively to atheism.

I've asked you three honest questions, and your answers have been deficient cop-outs to say the least. If we can't have a proper open dialogue, there's no point in even talking. The idea that you cannot present atheism as a position, and that I cannot challenge atheism as a position is ridiculous because many people have done it before.