Very few debates can have such a wide divide as that between atheists and Christians. The information, literature, and web sites concerning Christianity outnumber those for atheism by several orders of magnitude. Christians should have no excuse for not being able to support their arguments. Atheists do not have such a wealth of support and many atheists are not aware that support groups and meeting places are available where they can obtain help and be able to discuss their points of view. Many also feel they are on their own and are reluctant to admit to their position. This topic introduces atheism and will hopefully help those who are unsure of their beliefs but do not know where to turn. The following brief text has been taken from the web site http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism I encourage both atheists and Christians to read from this site. For atheists it is a wealth of perhaps new information for you, and should help you find support groups through the Atheist Alliance. For Christians you will find it useful to know the arguments that will be aimed at you and help you more clearly understand the position of the atheist. In any battle it is important to know your opponent, be well equipped with the right weapons, and understand how to use those weapons. A primary weapon in our debate should be the use of rational argument. The site gives a lengthy dissusion on the use of forming such arguments. These rules and guidelines are equally suited to both sides. This debate has been raging for many centuries so I doubt we will end it here. However, it is truth that we should be seeking and not just how well we argue for our side. Trying to understand the point of view of your opponent is very often not attempted or is very difficult. Be open minded if you can and always question yourself with 'could this argument I hear be true'. "What is atheism?" Atheism is characterized by an absence of belief in the existence of gods. This absence of belief generally comes about either through deliberate choice, or from an inherent inability to believe religious teachings which seem literally incredible. It is not a lack of belief born out of simple ignorance of religious teachings. Some atheists go beyond a mere absence of belief in gods: they actively believe that particular gods, or all gods, do not exist. Lacking belief in Gods is often referred to as the "weak atheist" position. Believing that gods do not (or cannot) exist is known as "strong atheism". Regarding people who have never been exposed to the concept of 'god': Whether they are 'atheists' or not is a matter of debate. Since you're unlikely to meet anyone who has never encountered religion, it's not a very important debate... It is important, however, to note the difference between the strong and weak atheist positions. "Weak atheism" is simple scepticism; disbelief in the existence of God. "Strong atheism" is a positive belief that God does not exist. Please do not fall into the trap of assuming that all atheists are "strong atheists". There is a qualitative difference in the "strong" and "weak" positions; it's not just a matter of degree. Some atheists believe in the non-existence of all Gods; others limit their atheism to specific Gods, such as the Christian God, rather than making flat-out denials. "But isn't disbelieving in God the same thing as believing he doesn't exist?" Definitely not. Disbelief in a proposition means that one does not believe it to be true. Not believing that something is true is not equivalent to believing that it is false; one may simply have no idea whether it is true or not. Which brings us to agnosticism. "What is agnosticism then?" The term 'agnosticism' was coined by Professor T.H. Huxley at a meeting of the Metaphysical Society in 1876. He defined an agnostic as someone who disclaimed both ("strong") atheism and theism, and who believed that the question of whether a higher power existed was unsolved and insoluble. Another way of putting it is that an agnostic is someone who believes that we do not and cannot know for sure whether God exists. Since that time, however, the term agnostic has also been used to describe those that do not believe that the question is intrinsically unknowable, but instead believe that the evidence for or against God is inconclusive, and therefore are undecided about the issue. To reduce the amount of confusion over the use of term agnosticism, it is recommended that usage based on the original definition be qualified as "strict agnosticism" and usage based on the second definition be qualified as "empirical agnosticism". Words are slippery things, and language is inexact. Beware of assuming that you can work out someone's philosophical point of view simply from the fact that she calls herself an atheist or an agnostic. For example, many people use agnosticism to mean what is referred to here as "weak atheism", and use the word "atheism" only when referring to "strong atheism". Beware also that because the word "atheist" has so many shades of meaning, it is very difficult to generalize about atheists. About all you can say for sure is that atheists don't believe in God. For example, it certainly isn't the case that all atheists believe that science is the best way to find out about the universe. To continue with the introduction follow this link http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/intro.html I take the position of the strong atheist, also known as a critical atheist, or even anti-theist. I have participated in many debates with Christians, but always live debates where I am usually the only atheist. An online debate such as this is new to me. The live debates are usually polite, are often very heated, but personal abuse is extremely rare. My viewpoint is simple - Christians claim that a God exists. They have not proved their case and I do not believe they can. If Christians wish others to believe in their cause then they must offer proof. In the same way as a scientist who claims to have made a new discovery, he is expected to prove his claim before gaining any acceptance. With such an important issue as the existence of a God it seems even more important for the claim to be proved. And it is not the duty of the audience to disprove the claim. I also believe that the widespread introduction of Christianity over the centuries has caused and continues to cause serious harm to humanity, and that it is important for mankind to return to rationality. Note: text edited to remove the period from the two hyperlinks - sorry. [This message has been edited by Wizard (edited January 26, 2000).]
<img src = "http://users.esc.net.au/~nitro/BBoard_member_gifs/bowser_anim.gif"> Now there's a can of worms. ------------------ It's all very large.
Greetings and salutations. ________________________________________ My viewpoint is simple - Christians claim that a God exists. They have not proved their case and I do not believe they can. If Christians wish others to believe in their cause then they must offer proof. In the same way as a scientist who claims to have made a new discovery, he is expected to prove his claim before gaining any acceptance. With such an important issue as the existence of a God it seems even more important for the claim to be proved. And it is not the duty of the audience to disprove the claim. _____________________________________ My viewpoint is simple - Atheists claim that God does not exist. They have not proved their case and I do not believe they can. If Atheists wish others to believe in their cause then they must offer proof. In the same way as a scientist who claims to have made a new discovery, he is expected to prove his claim before gaining any acceptance. With such an important issue as the existence of a God it seems even more important for the claim to be proved. And it is not the duty of the audience to disprove the claim. _________________________________________ I also believe that the widespread introduction of Christianity over the centuries has caused and continues to cause serious harm to humanity, and that it is important for mankind to return to rationality. _______________________________________ I also believe that the widespread introduction of Athiesm in today's society has caused and continues to cause serious harm to humanity, and that it is important for mankind to return to a Christ centered life. Grace and peace in Christ, Vinnie Praise Jesus!!!
I consider "atheism" an unfortunate term of ancient standard which fails to encompass the entirety of what modern atheism has come to be. The very root of the word atheism suggests an opposition to gods. Yet I know no atheists who will not worship God if it can be conclusively demonstrated that there is a reason to do so. To the other, I know several religious people who take moral offense to the idea that they're closely related to chimpanzees and babboons. I rarely experience these processes, if ever, in reverse. Atheism may currently suffer a difficulty I encountered upon leaving Christianity behind. The problem was that I didn't leave it far enough behind, and continued to seek alternatives in the context of one-upping Christianity. Modern circumstances have polarized atheists and Christians; it isn't that atheism believes in Islam and not Christianity, it's just that where religion crosses social boundaries, there is less public discourse in the United States regarding Hindu or Wicca than there is Christianity. So I think that atheism has come to be viewed largely as a movement in opposition to Christianity. This observation could be wrong, I admit. But one aspect of this juxtaposition that holds true seems to be that atheism regards religion as limiting. Of my own religious experiences--even the best of them--I think this is true. Certainly, I might speak of various revelations that would not have come without my occult dabblings, or epiphanies that would not be without having played about in the Craft ... but I personally tended to drift too far into the imagery of the philosophy and stopped making the connections between faith and reality; thus, the harmony I sought was no longer a benefit of my pursuits. Or, at least, that's one way to look at it. For the record ... I have no idea what I would call myself--definitely not an atheist, though. But all of those words--monotheist, pantheist, atheist ... they separate people's ideas, and weigh them by the flaws of the idea without seeing the value. (Or, at least, this has been the result I'm most familiar with.) thanx, Tiassa ------------------ Take a side you say, it's black and gray. And all the hunters take the hunted merrily out to play. We are one, you say, but who are you? You're all too busy reaping in the things you never sown. And this beast must go on and on and on .... Nobody gives a damn. (Floater; "Beast")
Once again, someone has decided to hold court and make God the defendant. Who is the jury? Adult humans? O.K. then. What type of case shall we make this? Criminal or civil? In accordance with criminal law, the jury needs to see the physical evidence and hear the testimonial evidence and, in general, come to a unanimous decision beyond all reasonable doubt. With respect to the existence of God, we already know that the decision is not going to be unanimous. So, unless you want to declare God a criminal, this is a mute point for purposes of this discussion. So, let's be reasonable and look at this in the sense of a civil case where majority rules. In accordance with this civil law, the jury needs to come to a majority decision based on the "preponderance of the evidence." Does the evidence in such a case consist only of "physical" evidence? No, it does not. What else is presented which is considered reasonable and rational for human beings to ponder before rendering their decision in any case? It is the "testimony" of others. Why? Because adult human juries are thought to have the intelligence and life experience necessary to come to a reasonable decision based on "all" the facts, not just the physical evidence. Therefore, to exclude such evidence as suggested in the initial post, would be unreasonable. Based on the preponderance of evidence which the majority of intelligent, reasonable and rational people in this world have seen, heard and experienced in their lives, the overwhelming majority has already come to the conclusion that God exists. Atheists make up about 3.8% of the world population... that is within a reasonable margin for error, don't you think? Case closed. (If you are set on trying to convince the majority of the world otherwise, please try to remember that when you are dealing with reasonable people, you need to take into consideration "all" the evidence as described above).
The Case is closed? LMAO That's pretty amusing, I trust you weren't being entirely serious! Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Let's put God up in front of Judge Judy. He could be the plaintiff if you like.
JMitch, What I AM serious about is "reasonableness"... It seems that our scientific friend wants to hold a court in which logic is "supposed" to prevail but in which physical evidence "only" is permitted (reasonable testimony is thereby excluded) with the intent of trying to prove/disprove the existence of God, a very supernatural (for the most part non-physical) entity. Based on the fact that the author of the thread proposes discussing the existence of God, a most supernatural entity, while at the same time proposes that the argument be limited to "physical proof only," evidences inconsistent reasoning and sets up an illogical and contradictory environment for discussion in and of itself... As far as I'm concerned, this thread's author closed this situation to reasonableness from the outset... Judge Judy would only add to the chaos. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! [This message has been edited by truestory (edited January 25, 2000).]
I would like to repeat one of my previous post which I think is consistent to this topic. You can hear very often from people who believes in certain believe system, that to become one of them you should take the whole their system as it is. If you have some problems with explanation any divergences to yourself you should pray more and believe that there is solution of your doubts somewhere – God knows where. And after you death, every such doubts will disappear in bright light of God. What was happening during last 50 years that traditional believe systems lost their attractiveness to people? I want to focus only on Christianity, because this is the main subject of our discussion. We have to remember that the final shape of Christianity was established in about 3- 4 century (remember that it was established by PEOPLE who based on Jesus live). In my opinion it was significant development of men’s approach to other men and his live in those times. Maybe it was the reason of such quick increase of this religion. During the time we noticed one significant change, when evangelic church came into existence as a successful attend to improve the system to the present (in those time) people mentality. But from 16 century till now we cannot find any other such changes in faith systems. In the other hand the mankind has reached from 16 century till now so great development in science, culture, relation between other people or nations which had never been reached before. Should the faith system evolve in accordance with mankind culture or it should remain frozen? I don’t know, who should answer to this question – maybe pope. But in case, it remain frozen, the system become less compatible with people mentality and then people cannot receive the answers for most of their basic questions from the system. They have to believe in more range than before. We live in real world; we have to step on hard ground, so such approach become not acceptable to more and more people – what we have seen recently. People have to stay in front of dramatically choose: faith, but it brings divergences in their minds or live without God but it give a pain somewhere deep inside. Today people often choose the second solution and try to deaden that pain by amusements, music, movies, and etc., or try to find their own solution for relation with God. I understand Christians. From their perspective both above decisions are wrong – first one is obvious, the second: they know that people mentality is generally lazy and people solutions (based mostly on mixture of exotic systems) are often conform with their wishes, not with requirements of transcendentality. Christians see the dangerous for non-believers souls and why they are so active (sometimes even aggressive) with promotion of Christianity. I think that Christians have to understand that today the only faith is not enough for more and more people. I’m sure that such awareness would be helpful for their work effectiveness. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! The Ravens Are Not What They Seem ------------------
I think the reason that there aren't more support groups for atheists is that we don't feel we need support. Truths tend to hold themselves up without needing to be propped up by support groups. They stand alone on facts. We don't need to meet to discuss those facts because they are common knowledge to us. ------------------ I may not agree with what you have to say, but I will fight, kill, and die for your right to say it.
Truestory - But even an eye witness can be mistaken - juries know that and keep that in mind. Cold hard physical evidence will overrun any spoken testimony (except in the OJ Simpson trial).
Agree with Oxygen, but I guess this person is appealing to insecure failed Christians who may need some moral and material support in their new found disbelief! Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Greetings ilgwamh, I enjoyed your play on my words. Two things, firstly, atheists do not make the claim that God does not exist. Except for simple objects it is usually not possible to prove that something does not exist, one would have to check every corner of the universe to do so. An atheist is someone who has an absence of belief in the existence of God. Please see the website again for the full definition and a better explanation. Secondly Christianity is an evangelical religion, it actively attempts to convert others to its belief system. Atheism is not a belief system and does not have a cause. It seems reasonable to me that if you want me to believe in your cause then you must offer good reasons. tiassa, You sound a lot like me 10 years ago. Before that it took me some 20 years to fully escape the Christian turmoil in my head. For most of the past 30 years, since my teenage encounter with Christianity, I refused to accept a label and it is only recently that I accepted what I had become. The term atheism has a long history of negativity attached to it and a definite stigma. Many atheists will refuse the label and use other terms like freethinker, or simply state that they have no religious beliefs. Technically the term means 'without theism', where if we substitute 'belief in god' for theism then atheism becomes 'no belief in god'. In the end you are either one or the other. If you believe in a god then you are a theist, if you don't then you are an atheist, there is no middle ground. I would indeed accept a god if there was some conclusive evidence. The possibility of an afterlife and eternal life would be foolsh things to decline. I think that the evangelical nature of Christianity naturally results in a defensive reaction by those who do not want to be converted. The effect we see is atheism opposing Christianity. truestory Many years ago millions of people believed that the world was flat and there was significant literature on the subject. The fact that most people believe in something offers no proof as to truth or falsehood. Truth is an absolute and cannot be reliably determined by a majority vote. Democracy does not always result in the best choice. The jury system also makes mistakes and the innocent can be wrongfully imprisoned and executed despite a preponderance of evidence. Your court trial argument is invalid because the majority can be wrong. However, can you tell me the source of the 3.8% value please? In your second posting, I have not introduced a court scenario, I have not mentioned the use of logic, I have not limited the type of evidence, and I am completely open to reasonable arguments. Ivan Kruk, Thankyou very much for your posting. I think I understand most of what you are saying and your conclusion makes sense. There should be plenty of room in this debate for discussion of the early years of Christianity, especially the role of Paul, and I'd like to discuss evidence from the book of Q. But these can be future topics. Oxygen, I believe you are correct to some degree, but for those that are new to atheism then knowing they are not alone can be important. And support groups can be a source of information if only in the form of a newsletter. Secondly, Christianity has powerful political pressure groups. These groups appear to be trying very hard to have Christianity taught in our schools, to obtain government funding for Christian schools, and to increase the role of Christians in government. If you value your lifestyle then perhaps a completely passive role may not be the best. Something like the Atheist Alliance can organize political opposition where needed. Mooncat - thanks. tablariddim, Quote ------------------------------------------------ Agree with Oxygen, but I guess this person is appealing to insecure failed Christians who may need some moral and material support in their new found disbelief! ------------------------------------------------ Yes very much.
Wizard, You are not excluding testimonial evidence? You are not holding court (so to speak)? It seems that you are calling God's existence into question (which is fine). It seems that you are also asking for "proof" to be presented and have indicated that it must be presented in a manner akin to a "scientific" discovery - this certainly seems to exclude non-scientific testimony...? I presume that someone will be the "judge" of the adequacy of such "proof" in this debate? I believe you indicated that you have been in such debates before and that you are usually the only atheist... Therefore, it seems reasonable to conclude that you have previously been offered what many others perceive to be valid evidence in the way of testimony concerning the existence of God... Given that, and your resulting strong atheism, it also seems reasonable to conclude that you have "judged" such testimony to be unacceptable to you. Given the above, it seems reasonalbe to conclude that you have narrowed your reasoning ability in this matter to disregard testimonial evidence and to accept physical evidence only as proof... am I missing something? What I would like to say here is that we, as humans, need to further exercise our reasoning ability in order to expand our ability to reason. Here, I offer the following which I believe demonstrates the exercise of a keen and expanded ability to reason that which is not necessarily readily visible in a scientific manner: "There are more sure marks of authenticity in the Bible than in any profane history." - Isaac Newton "This most beautiful system of the sun, planets, and the comets could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being...This Being governs all things, not as the soul of the world, but as Lord over all; and on account of his dominion he is wont to be called Lord God." - Isaac Newton With respect to the figure concerning atheism and world population... I did a search of "atheism" and "world population" on the net... the following website contained the data which I referenced... www.zpub.com/un/pope/relig.html By the way, when attempting to access the websites which you posted at the beginning of this thread, the result was "Page not found" for both. [This message has been edited by truestory (edited January 26, 2000).]
Wizard, Nevertheless my poor English, if you treat such sociological occurrence as atheism, disconnected with the past, I think you make a mistake. To be honest – The whole discussion on the subject: Can Christians proof the existence of God? and therefore Do atheists have a right with their believing God doesn't exist – is simply say - out of sense. The biggest fault of Christians is that they treat Bible as a source of any proof for every what they claim. They declare that God is out of our perception – He exists in other reality, which is unable to be experienced by our limited 5 senses. In the other hand, they declared: Hey, you can find the proof of God existence in the BOOK – Bible. Those book which was prepared by people - for people, which is common with our limited perception. It’s pure rubbish! Then, the discussion with such augments looks for me like the shutting at fly with a cannon. But, much worse is to jump into conclusion, that If I can proof to myself that they (Christians) are wrong, that means: God doesn’t exist! I believe that Christians has a right with two things: God exists, He is out of our perception. Because of the second sentence I don’t try to understand what is His nature, where He is, What are His skills – it’s out of sense for me. If you believe that God doesn't exist or believe that He is real – it’s only your matter. I don’t think that it can be a subject of serious discussion. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! The Ravens Are Not What They Seem ------------------
Ivan, Your English is fine... You expression is perfectly understandable and welcomed. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Truestory-- Regarding your two Newton quotes: Strong words from a strong mind. They are a beautiful summation of the faith of a very bright man. He also got the closest to identifying that force which unites all of nature, and therefore may be a direct symptom of God: gravity. I wanted to advise you of two other quotes. The second one, I must admit, is of dubious citation; it was quoted in a book separate from its origin. "Beer is proof that God loves us, and wants us to be happy." (Benjamin Franklin) "Malt does more than Milton can to justify God's ways to man." (Ambrose Bierce; quoted by P. J. O'Rourke) On the other hand, I thought you didn't like looking to old, dead people who are not Christ for advisement regarding Christ. Are we now allowed to consider history in this sad theatre of theological cacophony? That's a promising second act. thanx, Tiassa ------------------ Take a side you say, it's black and gray. And all the hunters take the hunted merrily out to play. We are one, you say, but who are you? You're all too busy reaping in the things you never sown. And this beast must go on and on and on .... Nobody gives a damn. (Floater; "Beast")
tiassa, We both sound like broken records... ...atmosphere of respect conducive to a free exchange of ideas...
Thanks truestory for pointing out the problems with the hyperlinks. There was a period included at the end of each. They should work fine now. Sorry about that. Is that philosophy getting in the way of technology or is it the other way round?
Truestory-- Well, in the spirit of open communication, I want to make sure that I'm hearing you right. After all, I would hate to offend you by phrasing a question badly. For the record, so you don't have to waste a post, this is considered wording a question badly: "So, uh ... how dumb are you?" I mean, given the crap you fling when people dredge up historical figures in Christianity, it seems a fair question to ask if you've suddenly realized the value of considering the past. In that sense, it doesn't sound like a broken record, though. It has the possibility of going on to a new song ... but that's up to you. Otherwise, the only conclusion that I can draw is that you're narrowminded enough to accept history only when it's complimentary to your current beliefs. Thus, the actual question: When is history relevant? ("When it doesn't offend Truestory," is NOT an answer here. Well, it is an answer, but a damn feeble one at that.) So what's it gonna be, True? Step up and join the twenty-first century? Or mire yourself in post-Victorian denial that should have been left in the nineteenth? Step up and take a swing. Or at least let everyone know the name of the game you're playing. I've heard Seinfeld jokes more original than your complex, individual faith. --Tiassa ------------------ Take a side you say, it's black and gray. And all the hunters take the hunted merrily out to play. We are one, you say, but who are you? You're all too busy reaping in the things you never sown. And this beast must go on and on and on .... Nobody gives a damn. (Floater; "Beast")
