Strategies for Dialoguing with Atheists

[-۞-]

This link has recently popped up at venganza.org:

http://home.earthlink.net/~ronrhodes/Atheism.html

It is some Christians idea for dialoguing with Atheists.
When you stopped laughing I propose a short writing competion to demolish one other or both of the arguments.

There isn't any prize, but credit may be given for brevity, clarity, simplicity, grammar, spelling, style and impact.

I know its easy, but lets see how many ways we can pull them apart.

My quickest response to the first argument is of questionable coyness. If the evidence that will prove there is a God is somewhere on file - bring it out.
You can't argue that God exists because something might prove it.
That's silly.

The quick response to the second argument is obviousness. Our definitions of Good and Evil are social constructions that have evolved and developed overtime out of the behaviour of groups.
You need to know that to understand how and why morality changes overtime.
It isn't OK to keep slaves or rape your wife anymore. But 150 years ago it was fine.
What you can't do is easily explain morality as some eternal rule of God.
An eternal, all knowing God who changes his mind with society...

[Alice Shade]

Answers:

1) So far, not a single religion had produced a viable description of God - every single one is factually contradicted. It IS possible to concieve supernatural God, that could be existing, but it`s certainly not YHWH.

2) Good try. But, completely evading the issue at hand. Let`s suppose there is NO God. Then we are free to judge Hitler objectively, and if we are subscribing to the idea of nazism, we can say that he did good by killing million Jews. That`s atheism.
Now, let`s suppose, that God does exists. Now, either he allowed terrible atrocity to go on against his will, which contradicts with assertion of omnipotence, either he didn`t cared/approved it, which contradicts with the assertion of omnibenevolence.

[Digs]

1) No-one has taken a giant picture of infinite resolution of the north pole, and yet it is taken as socially accepted fact among the sane that there is no invisible, fat, jolly time magician using elf labour to construct gifts for delivery to good little girls and boys. The same holds true for lagomorphic fertility symbols roaming the land dropping eggs of questionable origin, as well as for a pisky-woman of nigh-infinite speed, knowledge and lifespan afflicted with a fixation on teeth. The argument being used for God in this instance is effectively an argument for the three latter subjects as well, and moreover it does not logically follow.

2) Actually, -۞-, your argument pretty much covers this one. Good and evil are stuff we made up and shouldn't really come into discussion of whether a god exists or not. Even if a god was evil, it'd still be a god, just not the benevolent one people would, y'know, prefer.

[Fallen Hero]

Lol... I've seen this 2 guestion tactic somewhere I think they did something with a banana... still funny by how wrong it is.

[-AoG-Kero]

1) No-one has taken a giant picture of infinite resolution of the north pole, and yet it is taken as socially accepted fact among the sane that there is no invisible, fat, jolly time magician using elf labour to construct gifts for delivery to good little girls and boys. The same holds true for lagomorphic fertility symbols roaming the land dropping eggs of questionable origin, as well as for a pisky-woman of nigh-infinite speed, knowledge and lifespan afflicted with a fixation on teeth. The argument being used for God in this instance is effectively an argument for the three latter subjects as well, and moreover it does not logically follow.

lol i love your reasoning. It's true.

Ill have to remember this.

This is a very good point. Who are we to say that somewhere there isnt a god? But if no one can prove there is a god, then no one can prove there isnt a god.

Essentially Athiests have faith in the fact there is no god, and religions such as christianity and judaism have a faith in the fact there is a god, yet neither can prove their idea.

Thats why they call it "faith".

[Alice Shade]

Not exactly.

Agnosticism allows the theoretical existance of supernatural deity.

Argument is, that Christian God can`t be it - it`s definition contradicts itself.

Now, Hinduism has it much closer to non-disprovable God, as they don`t really attribute anything specific to Brahmin.

[-۞-]

We need to get rid of the idea that Athesits need faith to not believe in God.

As pointed out there are lots of things we don't believe in but can't prove the non-existence of.
God is no different. Human understanding does not proceed from the premise of believing everything and then determining what is untrue.
We proceed from knowing nothing and determining what is true by observation and inference.
So we proceed from the position that there is no God and look for evidence of existence.
The only 'faith' required is the ordinary faith you need to believe that the world exists and sun shines upon it.
Not by a million miles the blind faith of religion.

[Digs]

The axiom that logical people have faith in is that the information we're getting from our senses is good. At some point all reason goes back to axiomatic thinking, because it has to.

[-۞-]

Digs, I agree.

But that doesn't (of course) put atheism in the same bracket as Christian belief.
We all have to assume that our senses are delivery reliable information about an ontological reality.
That don't mean believing in God is OK.
In fact it makes it very much NOT OK, because nothing arriving at your senses can be sensibly interpreted as reason to believe in God so you shouldn't.

The theists often try the 'atheists need faith too' argument. Its completely worthless - like all theistic argument known to man.

[-AoG-Kero]

how would theists use the "have faith too" thing to their advantage? what would they prove, other than their opinion, by saying that statement.

[Alice Shade]

Demagogy.

Saying "you have faith too" to atheist is their attempt to move along into "So me and you both have faiths, and you have no place to disprove mine, yours isn`t any better."

[-۞-]

"You have faith too" is an invitation to an apologists attempt to drag Atheism down to the superstitious level of religion.

It needs resisting. It isn't true.

Because they have no argument they often go for the 'agree to differ' stance.
Atheists shouldn't allow that conclusion. We need to agree that they are wrong in holding their totally unsubstansiated beliefs so dearly.

The atheist camp does itself harm by letting these nonsense arguments prevail.

If the religious offer the 'agree to differ' argument see if they will accept that they are actually agnostics. Since they accept they have no real argument should they be holding such a firm stance?

[Alice Shade]

Sounds good, except they start on "Hey, you`re no better then me, you have faith in science/atheism/agnosticism - you don`t have any proof either."

[-۞-]

I don't need proof to not believe.
The burden of proof rests squarely and soley with the believer.
That is an established principle of epistemology.
Nothing else makes sense. We'd end up believing allsorts of gobshite that we can't disprove. Not just God.

It's like saying that crows can turn purple if they want to.
The response to 'prove it' is "find me a crow that wants to turn purple that isn't purple and I'm discredited but until then you must accept that crows can turn purple if they want to".

Being a Christian, if you find me a bird and that taps out "I WANT TO BE PURPLE" on a keyboard I'll say "It doesn't want it enough!".

[Alice Shade]

Wanna explain that to Christians?

They sincerely think that we "believe" in non-existance of God.

Quote from one of them - "Had you examined all evidence there is in the world to say that there is no evidence that God exists?"

I`ve replied - "Well, no. Instead, I examined some of that evidence, that God does not exists."

Needless to say, that demarche was ignored.

[Can Not]

You can't prove it. I can't prove it.

However, most Christians will go on and say "But teh bible?!!@?!@"

[-AoG-Kero]

You can't prove it. I can't prove it.

However, most Christians will go on and say "But teh bible?!!@?!@"

but the bible says that gods real so he is!
lol

____

actually your right no one can prove it...except for god, but...well thats just a paradox waiting to happen

[-۞-]

Many other books say that God doesn't exist or describe God in a dramatically different way.

The Bible is at best controversial and definitely not a primary evidence of contemporaneous eye witness account.
It it distinctly against the Bible that it is the only evidence we have.

We need solid evidence, not hearsay.

Prima facie the bible is a set of allegories and folktales and on all points that we can validate (particularly creation) is patently wrong.
If you're objective you need to treat it as of uncertain validity.
Not that the Christians are objective, but you can't base your entire understanding of the universe on a dodgey old book.
Only an idiot would do such a thing.

[-AoG-Kero]

Demagogy.

Saying "you have faith too" to atheist is their attempt to move along into "So me and you both have faiths, and you have no place to disprove mine, yours isn`t any better."

just wondering, but do you keep like a dictionary next to your computer or something???
_____

"We need solid evidence, not hearsay."

well most conventional religions and their gods will never be able to present that since the behavior of said gods are usually that of where the god presents itself to believers, or to non-beleivers and convincing them that they are right. so the chance of having solid evidence that is viable world-wide is slim-to-none


"... but you can't base your entire understanding of the universe on a dodgey old book.
Only an idiot would do such a thing."

thats why i think modern-day christians(and any other religions based on the bible) should look at the bible, and decide which was historical fact, and which was a story made for morals. Then they could take the morals and update them to fit in to todays culture

[-۞-]

well most conventional religions and their gods will never be able to present that since the behavior of said gods are usually that of where the god presents itself to believers, or to non-beleivers and convincing them that they are right. so the chance of having solid evidence that is viable world-wide is slim-to-none

Well exactly. There is no evidence and we are generally assured there never will be any evidence. All rational people will no believe that the claims are not true.
If only because any argument that proves that there is no evidence and there never will be is normally accepted as evidence against.
[I refer the honourable member to the answer I gave some posts ago].

It is the feeblest form of circular argument to believe the bible is the word of God because the bible declares itself to be the word of God. If you genuinely cannot see how others see that as a flawed argument then you can only be described as an idiot.
Indeed society would do well to define anyone who thought such as an idiot.

[-AoG-Kero]

Well people are not idiots simply because they believe the bible is the word of god, thats just faith. I think everyone realizes that the bible was not written by god, but metaphorically i think that it could be called the word of god.

[-۞-]

Look at this:

This is the word of God

If you believe that this post is the word of God because it says it is the word of God you are an idiot.
I don't see how you can argue with that.

If you are going to believe the Bible is the word of God or inspired by the word of God or the human transcription and/or interpretation of the word of God you need to do better than saying it is the word of God simply and solely because it claims to be the word of God.

There can be no question that someone who believes the Bible is the word of God solely because it says it is, is an idiot.

You may have other better reasons, but if you don't and you still believe, you're an idiot.

It's probably pointless to discuss anything with such a person and appeal to the great many people in the world who aren't that stupid.

[Thorn]

I think it'll take me all day to finish reading the webpage symbol posted. I laugh through each paragraph!

[-AoG-Kero]

but who said people believe the bible is the word of god soley because it says so? most people have many more reasons to believe that

[Fallen Hero]

Religious belief is not inherently bad. It need to be informed though.

[-۞-]

but who said people believe the bible is the word of god soley because it says so? most people have many more reasons to believe that
.
Some people particularly Jehovahs witnesses take that line.
It is a feeble minded argument but has an annoying inpenetrable stupidity to it.
If you're that stupid, then perhaps you're too stupid to ever understand quite how stupid you really are. There must be such an objectivity event horizon in intelligence. Its just depressing how many people are below - though organised religion does nothing to lower threshold, actually one of the most damning criticisms are its perpetual efforts to raise that very threshold.

Intelligent informed people free to make their own choices who think about it objectively can not and do not believe in God.

You're right, if you aren't going with the 'it is the word of God because it says its the word of God' you ahve other reasons and for me that means there's hope you can be enlightened.

What's your particular fallacy?

[Digs]

Sym, that's kind of jumping the gun. It would be best to say that there's no current reason to believe in the existence of any god, excepting the limited ones that our search engines fit the bill of being. It's wholly possible that there is in fact some invisible sky magician who works in ways unobservable by our current understanding. It's just that parsimony, Ockham and logic tell us to assume what's simplest.

That said, agnosticism schools all you people who've made decisions in a logic-fight.

[Alice Shade]

Actually...

The most common argument from Christians I`ve heard would be something like this...

I have a personal relationship with God. You just need to let him into your soul, and he will enlighten you.

This argument, sadly, is quite impenetrable, because it postulates, that there is some inner proof, which is not available, until you allow yourself to accept christian convictions for your own.

It makes very hard to argue with Christians, because there is not much, that can be said to counter such argument. The "proof"-high ground it offers allows Christians to dismiss practically any argument on the basis, that "you don`t have the proof that I have and you refuse to acknowledge it".

P.S. No, I don`t have dictionary at hand all the times... Whatever sprouted that idea? In the rare case of me being unaware of certain word translation to english, Google Translation service comes to rescue.

[-۞-]

Yup, Belief by personal conviction.

In the total absence of evidence the most likely (if only) remaining argument is some sort of 'feeling' that it is right.

The important point is that we tolerate these beliefs but the people who have them must understand that it is unreasonable for them to impose any aspect of such a strictly personal experience on anyone else or expect great deference to it.

The real fact is that most people don't share those sorts of experiences and are quite reasonable to treat people who do as a bit eccentric and possibly slightly odd ball.

Most of the people who have this sort of experience don't completely agree with each other about what God wants of us or how we should behave so we the outsiders are left with the fact that they can't all be right.

That doesn't prove that they are all wrong, but individually they have to understand that they should expect very little credence to be given to their views.

That is of course in total contradiction to their common assumption that they have a (literally) God given right to dictate morality to the rest of the world.

Society tends to give these oddballs a wide birth and that comes over as respect when in fact we should tolerate their existence, robustly resist their propagation and show them minimal respect.

[-۞-]

Digs,

I'm not jumping the gun.
It is astronomically unlikely that this thread is the place where the new 'this time its different' argument for the existence of God is given.
If it is, I'll edit my post - OK?

All the arguments from observation have been robustly destroyed.
Only the 'I just know' argument remains.

All you need to do is realise is how water weak that is and at least that you can't expect anyone else to take it seriously.

[Alice Shade]

Heh, that`s the whole point.

Had you seen the threads in the Guestroom and Hatemail?

Religious people complain, that we are offensive to them by not showing them respect - them and their beliefs. Quite.... Bothersome, to say the least, considering that I don`t find inner convictions to be a cause for respect. Quite the same, I could claim, that I`m queen by my inner conviction, and have an inborn right to be referred to only with highest piety and not anyhow else, then "Your Majesty".

[-۞-]

Precisely. The basic problem with religion is the passive acceptance by the rest of society that the personal beliefs of the religious are in some way special and to be elevated above other peoples.

How it ought to be:

Christian: I believe you shouldn't conduct stem-cell research.
Atheist: Why?
Christian: Because I have a personal convicition that I know the mind of God.
Atheist: How slightly eccentric and mildly oddball of you. Are you going to answer the question?
Christian: Seriously God told me you shouldn't be doing that.
Atheist: Don't you think he'd tell me if he wanted me to do something. Assuming he exists, he knows where I am.

The non-religious should make sure they treat religious conviction as the feeblest form of argument (which it is) not the strongest.

[Alice Shade]

Heh. Well, there`s often argument - "God stops you through me."

[-۞-]

But if he doesn't its OK?

[Lord_Jereth]

But if he doesn't its OK?

Oh, no. That would denote an acceptance of logical thought - the antithesis and bane of Xtian dogma. :icon_rolleyes:

*Chuckles*

:icon_cool: LJ

[Skeptic for Mankind]

"Dialoguing with Atheists," huh? I at least appreciate that you're urging others to be civil about arguing for the Christian faith. I have seen some pretty vulgar stuff posted as an argument against atheism, and the less of that we have, the better. It's best to talk like civilized people.

However, you're never going to win against us (by "us" I mean atheists and agnostics). Here's why- we're not depending on a book that was written by human beings a couple of thousand years ago. The Bible was a story made up to explain how we got here and why, in an earlier time. Since then, we've found out so much more (such as the fact that the Earth is not flat nor the center of the universe). The book that you're depending on is not a dependable book.

Also, whether there's a god or not, I know that He/She/It isn't the Christian god. If that were true, we would be perfect organisms, because a benevolent, all-powerful god would not create a species with shocking imperfections, then send them to Hell because of some of those imperfections (greed, lust, etc). Free choice isn't what the problem is. God could have made us all boy scouts, without negative urges in the first place, but nooooooo...

That argument in itself would destroy the Christian point of view. So, you are not going to find ways to "tear us apart." We have evidence and you do not.

[Googlist720]

Point out that hundreds of thousands of these were written by scholars and specialists in the various academic fields. Then ask the following question: "What percentage of the collective knowledge recorded in the volumes in this library would you say are within your own pool of knowledge and experience?" The atheist will likely respond, "I don't know. I guess a fraction of one percent." You can then ask: "Do you think it is logically possible that God may exist in the 99.9 percent that is outside your pool of knowledge and experience?" Even if the atheist refuses to admit the possibility, you have made your point and he knows it. Are you kidding me, Ron? I've noticed that a lot of Theists link things together that have nothing to do with each other. How many of us would say "A fraction of one percent"?? Geez. He uses big words to confuse you. Some of them aren't even used in the right context!

(2) "I don't believe in God because there is so much evil in the world." Many atheists consider the problem of evil an airtight proof that God does not exist. They often say something like: "I know there is no God because if He existed, He never would have let Hitler murder six million Jews."

A good approach to an argument like this is to say something to this effect: "Since you brought up this issue, the burden lies on you to prove that evil actually exists in the world. So let me ask you: by what criteria do you judge some things to be evil and other things not to be evil? By what process do you distinguish evil from good?" The atheist may hedge and say: "I just know that some things are evil. It's obvious." Don't accept such an evasive answer. Insist that he tell you how he knows that some things are evil. He must be forced to face the illogical foundation of his belief system. WHHHAAAT?!? No Comment here. I'm Speechless.

[MeTHoD-X]

I lost count of the number of logical fallacies in that article.

Wow.

[Googlist720]

Is he implying that Atheists don't know the difference between good and evil?

[AaronD]

Are you inferring such :D ?

[Googlist720]

Are you insinuating that?

[Alice Shade]

It`s a common sentiment between theists, that atheism has no wrong and right, and therefore...

Therefore what, exactly?

___

I notice a whole lot of people tend to hedge at this question - theist and atheist alike.

Why exactly it is needed to know "wrong" and "right", in the first place?

[Digs]

I figure what's right is what's most useful in accomplishing your goal, whatever that is. So societies arose, a society being a big set of protocols for interacting and cooperating with other people without, I dunno, killing or doing undue harm to everyone else in the pursuit of whatever your goal is. So wrong is whatever society will not accept as within its limits of protocol, and right is whatever it will. I guess the problem comes when two groups have different right and wrong limits.

[Googlist720]

I agree with Digs.

[Alice Shade]

Good answer.

Yes, that concept is quite correct.

Problem with theists is that they take "right" and "wrong" as objective concepts, instead of subjective. Which does makes for unpleasant moments.

[-۞-]

I agree with Digs.
Wrong and right are social constructions.
Created by people through their discourses defining something we understand as society.

I find it extremely odd that theists could believe anything else or think anything else was needed.

They are childlike in their assumption of an absolute truth.