Announcement

Collapse

Apologetics 301 Guidelines

If you think this is the area where you tell everyone you are sorry for eating their lunch out of the fridge, it probably isn't the place for you


This forum is open discussion between atheists and all theists to defend and debate their views on religion or non-religion. Please respect that this is a Christian-owned forum and refrain from gratuitous blasphemy. VERY wide leeway is given in range of expression and allowable behavior as compared to other areas of the forum, and moderation is not overly involved unless necessary. Please keep this in mind. Atheists who wish to interact with theists in a way that does not seek to undermine theistic faith may participate in the World Religions Department. Non-debate question and answers and mild and less confrontational discussions can take place in General Theistics.


Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

The 'best' arguments for atheism and Christianity

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • I am newly returned to tWeb. This thread interests me, because it relates to my own beliefs. I cannot say I have read the entire thread, but the initial post pretty closely reflects my views. JUst as I do not think theism is a provable/unprovable position, I do not think atheism is a provable/unprovable position. At least not in the sense of an ironclad, logically unassailable proof. Both positions are, in essence, positions of faith based on the "best possible evidence." What led me to be atheist is the following:

    1) Theism shows a trend to disunity. As time goes on, religious sects to end to fragment and splinter into sects. This seems to me to be evidence that the core beliefs are not founded in an objective reality. Science, on the other hand, trends to unity. As proposals are made, they go through a process of rejection and re-evaluation (especially if they fly in the face of the established "truth.") But as evidence mounts, the tendency is towards unity rather than disunity, because there is a mechanism for weeding out misconceptions.

    2) The trend, over the course of history, is for religious explanations to be displaced by scientific ones, as we learn more and more about the universe and how it operates. This suggests to me that "god did it" is a substitute for "I don't know," until we actually DO know.

    3) I simply have no basis for accepting that a god exists. Despite a religious upbringing, and even several years in the seminary, I see nothing around me that requires a god. I see a great deal in our history and prehistory that suggests that the concept of god was one that emerged as a way to explain the inexplicable. So it comes as no surprise that atheism is on the rise and religions are waning as we learn more and more about the universe around us.

    Those are probably the big three reasons I find myself (to my own surprise) atheist.
    The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King

    I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas

    Comment


    • Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
      I am newly returned to tWeb.
      Welcome back! I'll probably be too busy in the near term to contribute much to this, but I thought I'd offer a couple of observations.
      This thread interests me, because it relates to my own beliefs. I cannot say I have read the entire thread, but the initial post pretty closely reflects my views. JUst as I do not think theism is a provable/unprovable position, I do not think atheism is a provable/unprovable position. At least not in the sense of an ironclad, logically unassailable proof. Both positions are, in essence, positions of faith based on the "best possible evidence." What led me to be atheist is the following:

      1) Theism shows a trend to disunity. As time goes on, religious sects to end to fragment and splinter into sects. This seems to me to be evidence that the core beliefs are not founded in an objective reality.
      This seems to me to be evidence that you're looking at this from a Protestant Christian POV (which is doubtless how you were raised). Most theistic groups are much less based on individualism, and are much less prone to splintering.
      Science, on the other hand, trends to unity. As proposals are made, they go through a process of rejection and re-evaluation (especially if they fly in the face of the established "truth.") But as evidence mounts, the tendency is towards unity rather than disunity, because there is a mechanism for weeding out misconceptions.
      This seems to be a rather apples-to-oranges comparison. If God were subject to the scientific method, he wouldn't be God.
      2) The trend, over the course of history, is for religious explanations to be displaced by scientific ones, as we learn more and more about the universe and how it operates. This suggests to me that "god did it" is a substitute for "I don't know," until we actually DO know.
      Such as?
      3) I simply have no basis for accepting that a god exists. Despite a religious upbringing, and even several years in the seminary, I see nothing around me that requires a god. I see a great deal in our history and prehistory that suggests that the concept of god was one that emerged as a way to explain the inexplicable. So it comes as no surprise that atheism is on the rise and religions are waning as we learn more and more about the universe around us.
      Huh. I've never found the "History of Religions" school to be particularly persuasive, which appears to be your way of looking at things. I agree that polytheism looks that way, but I don't find the models purporting to show monotheism developing out of polytheism at all convincing.
      Enter the Church and wash away your sins. For here there is a hospital and not a court of law. Do not be ashamed to enter the Church; be ashamed when you sin, but not when you repent. – St. John Chrysostom

      Veritas vos Liberabit<>< Learn Greek <>< Look here for an Orthodox Church in America<><Ancient Faith Radio
      sigpic
      I recommend you do not try too hard and ...research as little as possible. Such weighty things give me a headache. - Shunyadragon, Baha'i apologist

      Comment


      • Originally posted by One Bad Pig View Post
        Welcome back! I'll probably be too busy in the near term to contribute much to this, but I thought I'd offer a couple of observations.
        Thanks! Nice to "see" you again too. Been a while. Any thoughts you can offer are welcome.

        Originally posted by One Bad Pig View Post
        This seems to me to be evidence that you're looking at this from a Protestant Christian POV (which is doubtless how you were raised). Most theistic groups are much less based on individualism, and are much less prone to splintering.
        While it is true that was my upbringing, it's not my only framework. Every major religion has splintered, though it is true that Christianity has splintered the most, with well over 2500 sects. But even Buddhism (3 major sects), Hinduism (8), Islam (70+), and Judaism (three major branches, several minor) have sects. I cannot say I have studied every religion in the world, but every one that I have examined has splintered to some degree. And then, of course, there is the very presence of so many religions. If there is one objective reality concerning the existence and nature of a god or gods, it would seem to me one would be justified in expecting a bit more unity in the religious sphere.

        Originally posted by One Bad Pig View Post
        This seems to be a rather apples-to-oranges comparison. If God were subject to the scientific method, he wouldn't be God.
        I was not suggesting that god be subject to the scientific method. I was pointing out that "god did it" explanations, across the span of history, show a tendency to be replaced by a scientific explanation. I know of no example of it happening in the reverse. It strikes me as a reasonable conclusion that the phrase "god did it" or "it's gods will" is a placeholder for "I don't know." Personally, I prefer to simply say "I don't know."

        Originally posted by One Bad Pig View Post
        Such as?
        This list could be huge. The origins of the earth. The cause of rainbows. The variability of species. The list goes on and on. Little by little, over time, religions have shifted to the claim that god put the rules in place (as we discover the operating principles of the universe, abandoning the direct action by god claim. But we still see many "god did it" claims where science has yet to provide a complete explanation (e.g., the creation of the universe itself, speciation, etc.).

        Originally posted by One Bad Pig View Post
        Huh. I've never found the "History of Religions" school to be particularly persuasive, which appears to be your way of looking at things. I agree that polytheism looks that way, but I don't find the models purporting to show monotheism developing out of polytheism at all convincing.
        Many, but not all, religions have roots in other religions. The leap from polytheism to monotheism is an interesting one, and I agree with you that I have never seen a convincing link from polytheism to monotheism. I don't think the presence of such a link would disprove either worldview, and I don't think the absence of such a link proves either worldview, so I'm not sure why it is relevant here, and that wasn't really my point.

        I was speaking to the overarching course of history. We see the concept of god or gods emerging way back in prehistory, with many of the most basic functions of nature attributed to such beings. What would a caveman think of lightning - the rising of the sun - eclipses - blizzards - volcanoes - and all of the other forces of nature? Seeing themselves as able to act, and seeing these many things as a form of action - it seems reasonable to attribute these actions to a being more powerful than themselves - so the concept of gods was born and with it religions. Such a concept becomes deeply rooted in the human psyche, a means for explaining the inexplicable. Even as humanity begins to understand the world more, with the Greeks and Egyptians and Romans, each discovery simply raises new questions...and then the age of philosophy dawns with even more questions: Why is there good and evil? Why are we here instead of not here? What is "I?" And these too become folded into religious explanations. And then there is the grand-daddy of them all: how can a thinking being like myself just cease to be? There must be something beyond death.

        From what I have come to know of history and prehistory - the creation of religions and the evolution of religions is a perfectly natural, explicable thing. And I think we, as a species, are beginning to outgrow it. We are young, as a species. It has been merely a few tens of thousands of years since we lived in caves and mud hut villages. Some of us still do! I find myself wondering what humanity will believe in another 10,000 years. Will we have finally set aside all of our religions, and the differences they emphasize between people, to become a more unified species? I wonder...
        The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King

        I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas

        Comment


        • Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
          1) Theism shows a trend to disunity. As time goes on, religious sects to end to fragment and splinter into sects. This seems to me to be evidence that the core beliefs are not founded in an objective reality. Science, on the other hand, trends to unity. As proposals are made, they go through a process of rejection and re-evaluation (especially if they fly in the face of the established "truth.") But as evidence mounts, the tendency is towards unity rather than disunity, because there is a mechanism for weeding out misconceptions.
          What is in evidence regarding theistic beliefs is that everyone has some kind of idea of God. Even atheists have some kind of ideas for God for having reasons for not believing in any God.

          2) The trend, over the course of history, is for religious explanations to be displaced by scientific ones, as we learn more and more about the universe and how it operates. This suggests to me that "god did it" is a substitute for "I don't know," until we actually DO know.
          The universe is an evidence. Atheists typically argue the burden of proof is upon the theist. So then the universe cannot be shown to be evidence that there is no God? In which case the universe remains evidence of God.

          3) I simply have no basis for accepting that a god exists. Despite a religious upbringing, and even several years in the seminary, I see nothing around me that requires a god. I see a great deal in our history and prehistory that suggests that the concept of god was one that emerged as a way to explain the inexplicable. So it comes as no surprise that atheism is on the rise and religions are waning as we learn more and more about the universe around us.
          Which comes to the question, what is your concept of God? It is your concept of God which is the basis of your atheism.



          Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
          While it is true that was my upbringing, it's not my only framework. Every major religion has splintered, though it is true that Christianity has splintered the most, with well over 2500 sects. But even Buddhism (3 major sects), Hinduism (8), Islam (70+), and Judaism (three major branches, several minor) have sects. I cannot say I have studied every religion in the world, but every one that I have examined has splintered to some degree. And then, of course, there is the very presence of so many religions. If there is one objective reality concerning the existence and nature of a god or gods, it would seem to me one would be justified in expecting a bit more unity in the religious sphere.
          It is note worthy that Christianity has more claimants than any other faith group. It has more counterfeits than all the others combined. There is one genuine Christianity - that is why the false Christian cults notably lay claim to be the one true one.
          . . . the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; . . . -- Romans 1:16 KJV

          . . . that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: . . . -- 1 Corinthians 15:3-4 KJV

          Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: . . . -- 1 John 5:1 KJV

          Comment


          • Originally posted by 37818 View Post
            What is in evidence regarding theistic beliefs is that everyone has some kind of idea of God. Even atheists have some kind of ideas for God for having reasons for not believing in any God.
            Only people who have been acculturated in theistic societies take the notion of god seriously. And even then it varies tremendously according to the particular society. Those raised in non-theistic societies have no interest in the god hypothesis and are bemused by those who are.

            The universe is an evidence. Atheists typically argue the burden of proof is upon the theist. So then the universe cannot be shown to be evidence that there is no God? In which case the universe remains evidence of God.
            The universe is an evidence of the universe, nothing more. There is no good reason to add a god into the mix.

            Which comes to the question, what is your concept of God? It is your concept of God which is the basis of your atheism.
            My concept of god is that of a pre-scientific attempt by a primitive people to explain where the sun went at night...a role that has been superseded by science. In short, the notion of god is irrelevant.

            It is note worthy that Christianity has more claimants than any other faith group. It has more counterfeits than all the others combined. There is one genuine Christianity - that is why the false Christian cults notably lay claim to be the one true one.
            Don’t you claim that YOUR Christianity is the “one true one”? Does that make it a “false cult”?
            “He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” - Douglas Adams.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Tassman View Post
              Only people who have been acculturated in theistic societies take the notion of god seriously. And even then it varies tremendously according to the particular society. Those raised in non-theistic societies have no interest in the god hypothesis and are bemused by those who are.
              Tassman,
              You have some kind of notion about God or you could not call yourself an atheist. Such as "Only people who have been acculturated in theistic societies take the notion of god seriously. . . ." You have reasons not to take the concept if god seriously.

              The universe is an evidence of the universe, nothing more. There is no good reason to add a god into the mix.
              You have reason to argue that there is no good reason to add a god to the mix. You have your concept of a god. The fact that the Hebrew scripture asserts "In the beginning God created the heavens . . . ." That assertion effectively makes the claim that the universe is evidence of God. You deny that claim without anything from the evidence which you admit is in evidence.


              My concept of god is that of a pre-scientific attempt by a primitive people to explain where the sun went at night...a role that has been superseded by science. In short, the notion of god is irrelevant.
              The Hebrew writing makes the claim that their God actually interacted with man from the time God created man. It is claimed as a history.


              Don’t you claim that YOUR Christianity is the “one true one”? Does that make it a “false cult”?
              Well the claim Christianity is one true faith. Genuine Christians can be found across various Christian sects. The apostolic authority for the one true Christian faith being 66 book book called the Bible. Which all the Christian sects and its cults lay claim to. They all cannot be right. Yet there is consensus that 66 book Bible is of some kind of authority. And the genuine Christians do know God (John 17:3; John 14:6; Romans 8:16; 1 John 5:9-12).
              Last edited by 37818; 11-19-2017, 11:08 AM.
              . . . the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; . . . -- Romans 1:16 KJV

              . . . that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: . . . -- 1 Corinthians 15:3-4 KJV

              Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: . . . -- 1 John 5:1 KJV

              Comment


              • Originally posted by 37818 View Post
                Tassman,
                You have some kind of notion about God or you could not call yourself an atheist. Such as "Only people who have been acculturated in theistic societies take the notion of god seriously. . . ." You have reasons not to take the concept if god seriously.
                Yes, my notion of God is that of a mythical figure, there’s no good reason for me to think otherwise.

                You have reason to argue that there is no good reason to add a god to the mix. You have your concept of a god. The fact that the Hebrew scripture asserts "In the beginning God created the heavens . . . ." That assertion effectively makes the claim that the universe is evidence of God. You deny that claim without anything from the evidence which you admit is in evidence.
                Why would one add a mythical figure to the mix?

                The Hebrew writing makes the claim that their God actually interacted with man from the time God created man. It is claimed as a history.
                It’s a creation myth...one of thousands of creation myths. Google it!

                Well the claim Christianity is one true faith. Genuine Christians can be found across various Christian sects. The apostolic authority for the one true Christian faith being 66 book book called the Bible. Which all the Christian sects and its cults lay claim to. They all cannot be right. Yet there is consensus that 66 book Bible is of some kind of authority. And the genuine Christians do know God (John 17:3; John 14:6; Romans 8:16; 1 John 5:9-12).
                AFAIC they’re ALL false cults, same as you believe, just that I believe in one more false cult than you do.
                “He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” - Douglas Adams.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by 37818 View Post
                  What is in evidence regarding theistic beliefs is that everyone has some kind of idea of God. Even atheists have some kind of ideas for God for having reasons for not believing in any God.
                  I would pretty much agree with this. As an atheist, however, I do not find myself "creating an idea of a god" and then setting out to disbelieve or disprove it. Rather, I look at the various formulations for "god" presented by the various religions of the world, and I ask myself, "could such a being exist" and "does such a being exist." I am atheist because the answer to one or both of those questions, for each definition of "god" I have explored, is "I do not think so."

                  I do recognize, however, that a lot of people have come to a different conclusion than I.
                  The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King

                  I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
                    I would pretty much agree with this. As an atheist, however, I do not find myself "creating an idea of a god" and then setting out to disbelieve or disprove it. Rather, I look at the various formulations for "god" presented by the various religions of the world, and I ask myself, "could such a being exist" and "does such a being exist." I am atheist because the answer to one or both of those questions, for each definition of "god" I have explored, is "I do not think so."

                    I do recognize, however, that a lot of people have come to a different conclusion than I.
                    Uncaused Existence is the identity of God. Uncaused Existence as omnipresent and infinite and in need of nothing else. All other things in what ever way being caused are contingent on Uncaused Existence. Uncaused Cause is contingent on Uncaused Existence. Uncaused Cause and Uncaused Existence are two different things. Even though they are considered to both be the one God.
                    . . . the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; . . . -- Romans 1:16 KJV

                    . . . that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: . . . -- 1 Corinthians 15:3-4 KJV

                    Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: . . . -- 1 John 5:1 KJV

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by 37818 View Post
                      Even atheists have some kind of ideas for God for having reasons for not believing in any God.
                      Of course we do. And we get our ideas about gods from people who believe in gods. And when we ask them why we should believe in their gods, their responses provide us our reasons for not believing.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by 37818 View Post
                        Uncaused Existence is the identity of God.
                        Why can’t “uncaused existence” apply to an infinite universe?

                        https://www.universetoday.com/119553...e-or-infinite/
                        “He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” - Douglas Adams.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Tassman View Post
                          Why can’t “uncaused existence” apply to an infinite universe?

                          https://www.universetoday.com/119553...e-or-infinite/
                          The universe is more than existence even if uncaused existence is considered a chief part of it. Uncaused Existence remains a separate entity.
                          . . . the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; . . . -- Romans 1:16 KJV

                          . . . that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: . . . -- 1 Corinthians 15:3-4 KJV

                          Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: . . . -- 1 John 5:1 KJV

                          Comment


                          • (a) there would be less diversity of religions within the world and it would be more obvious that a particular religion was right rather than them all having a roughly equal lack of evidence for them
                            Skeptical theism applies to the former; and it is more obviously right to billions of people.

                            (b) there would be obvious miracles that occurred in the world, and the invention of everyone having cellphones and video cameras should mean that youtube should have a hundred thousand compelling videos of miracles happening, and the international media would be able to provide video footage of a person's leg growing back as the shaman prayed over the person.
                            There are obvious miracles around the world: read Craig Keener's book Miracles. Video footage doesn't take into the fact that you need faith for a miracle to happen. The only exception to this are the cluster of miracles that happened in the 1st century.

                            (c) Religious people who felt they had been 'given a message from God' would be right more often and agree with each other more.
                            They agree on the essentials. That's all that's necessary. The rest is because of free will.

                            (d) there would be less naturally occurring suffering in the world (disease, earthquakes, etc).
                            Skeptical theism.

                            (e) a deity could create the world and the life on it instantly, but everything we know about astronomy and biology tells us that naturalistic processes over billions of years were what formed our galaxy, our solar system, our planet, and evolved life on it.
                            Presupposes young earth creationism.

                            To phrase it as a single argument: The world as I observe it does not show any of the kinds of thing I would expect to see in a world created by or actively interfered with by a deity, whereas the observed world seems entirely consistent with the lack of a deity.
                            Not to me.

                            Thus the weight of the observed evidence points to atheism (or something close to it - e.g. that the deity's interference is minuscule).
                            Not really an argument for atheism. It's an argument for why you think you're justified in believing atheism to be true. That's different.
                            Many and painful are the researches sometimes necessary to be made, for settling points of [this] kind. Pertness and ignorance may ask a question in three lines, which it will cost learning and ingenuity thirty pages to answer. When this is done, the same question shall be triumphantly asked again the next year, as if nothing had ever been written upon the subject.
                            George Horne

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by 37818 View Post
                              Uncaused Existence is the identity of God. Uncaused Existence as omnipresent and infinite and in need of nothing else. All other things in what ever way being caused are contingent on Uncaused Existence. Uncaused Cause is contingent on Uncaused Existence. Uncaused Cause and Uncaused Existence are two different things. Even though they are considered to both be the one God.
                              I have absolutely no clue what to do with this, or how it relates to my original post. If you're describing the god you believe in, OK. I'm not sure you've given ME a reason to believe this being actually exists. I'm not sure if that is what you were trying to do...?
                              The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King

                              I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by 37818 View Post
                                The universe is more than existence even if uncaused existence is considered a chief part of it. Uncaused Existence remains a separate entity.
                                Please explain how the universe can be more than existence? If you're referring to our thoughts and values, they arise from within the existing universe.
                                “He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” - Douglas Adams.

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by whag, Yesterday, 03:01 PM
                                14 responses
                                42 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post tabibito  
                                Started by whag, 03-17-2024, 04:55 PM
                                21 responses
                                129 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
                                Started by whag, 03-14-2024, 06:04 PM
                                78 responses
                                411 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post tabibito  
                                Started by whag, 03-13-2024, 12:06 PM
                                45 responses
                                303 views
                                1 like
                                Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
                                Working...
                                X