Do atheists think that debating Christian apologists is wrong?

[ideologyhunter]

There is nothing in science which precludes faith in God.

There are any number of Bible verses which contradict what we observe in the natural world.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Do you really think it is possible to be scientifically literate and devoutly christian other than in claim only?

Footnotes. Lots and lots of footnotes.

*Not to be taken as literal language, historically accurate, scientifically literate, good math, or as a travelogue.

Scatter the *'s as needed.

 

[Ruth Harris]

Science doesn't work on the principle of faith.

Faith in God does not work on scientific principles. Love doesn't work on scientific principles either. Does that invalidate love? Both are intangible concerns; science is involved with tangible concerns. I have absolutely no hesitation in saying that science will never prove or disprove faith, any more than it can prove or disprove love. That is not the sphere of science. Likewise, faith or love will never prove or disprove science.

Ruth

 

[none]

Science doesn't work on the principle of faith.

Faith in God does not work on scientific principles. Love doesn't work on scientific principles either. Does that invalidate love? Both are intangible concerns; science is involved with tangible concerns. I have absolutely no hesitation in saying that science will never prove or disprove faith, any more than it can prove or disprove love. That is not the sphere of science. Likewise, faith or love will never prove or disprove science.

Ruth

Insecurity is empirical. Get over it.

 

[Learner]

Science doesn't work on the principle of faith.

Faith in God does not work on scientific principles. Love doesn't work on scientific principles either. Does that invalidate love? Both are intangible concerns; science is involved with tangible concerns. I have absolutely no hesitation in saying that science will never prove or disprove faith, any more than it can prove or disprove love. That is not the sphere of science. Likewise, faith or love will never prove or disprove science.

Ruth

Agreed Ruth. Some atheists I've come across, talk as if science is the sole property of atheism.

To the OP Unknown soldier. I've seen some good civil debates and discussions between Christians and atheists. Craig v Hitchens for example having mutual respect, and still having a laugh. Of course on forums it varies but can also be respectful, so it's all fine by me, (as being adults).

 

[Unknown Soldier]

One of my biggest concerns about religious belief is the adverse impact it can have on education especially science education. Living in a society full of uninformed and misinformed people can't be a good thing if education has any value at all. So I do care if any kind of thinking or lack of thinking results in millions of superstitious, ignorant people.

And......here we go again. Painting all believers with the same tarred brush.

Kind of like the sheep and the goats--or the wheat and the chaff, is it not? If you don't like being "tarred with the same brush," then tell Jesus not to do it to other people.

Anyway, I see that you detest being lumped in with other Christians. Why is that?

Yes, I am a Christian. No, I am not "uninformed and misinformed" or "superstitious, ignorant".

Aside from believing that you can telepathically communicate with an invisible person whom you've been told will grant your requests; no, you're not the least bit superstitious or misinformed.

I am a big believer in science. I admire scientists and educators tremendously for using their gifts to make our society better. I have spent my life learning about everything I could. And I am far from alone in the faith community. Unfortunately, the only religious people you hear about are the ones on the far right making fools of themselves in public...

If you're informed about science then you know that Bible cosmology and earth history have been demonstrated by scientists to be bogus.

...kind of like the only atheists you hear about are the ones who make big noises about how Christians are ignorant. Sadly, these are the exact people that wind up in positions of power since they know how to promote themselves as "the answer to our issues". My personal feelings are best stated by this - a pox on both of their houses!

Actually, the noises many Christians make demonstrate their ignorance. I don't need to tell anybody about that ignorance unless they are uninformed.

You have made a common error in conflating religious belief with lack of scientific belief. The two are entirely separate; faith deals with the intangible and science deals with the tangible world around us. There is no conflict there.

Actually, science and religion overlap in a lot of ways. Science keeps correcting the mistakes made by Christianity. If you are truly informed, then I don't need to tell you that.

Back to your original question - is it wrong for an atheist to debate a Christian apologist? Of course not. Both sides have to be willing for a debate to even occur. But you usually just see this happening between those on the fringe of each spectrum. Most of us find such debates to be boring, to be honest. The atheist says that the Christian is believing in fairy tales and not science, and the Christian says that the atheist has made science into their god. All they are doing is talking past each other since they aren't even discussing the same thing.

Ruth

I used to be a Christian apologist who debated skeptics. Do I need to inform you that that changed? When I realized I was wrong, I humbly admitted it. Maybe that's why so many Christians cannot be reasoned with; they lack the humility to admit their error.

 

[DBT]

Science doesn't work on the principle of faith.

Faith in God does not work on scientific principles. Love doesn't work on scientific principles either. Does that invalidate love? Both are intangible concerns; science is involved with tangible concerns. I have absolutely no hesitation in saying that science will never prove or disprove faith, any more than it can prove or disprove love. That is not the sphere of science. Likewise, faith or love will never prove or disprove science.

Ruth

Faith by definition is a belief held without the support of evidence. Science requires evidence.

 

[Ruth Harris]

If you're informed about science then you know that Bible cosmology and earth history have been demonstrated by scientists to be bogus.

Before I take the time to answer you item by item, it would probably enable better understanding on your part if you read a thread I started a few years ago, and in particular this post of mine in that thread:

https://talkfreethought.org/showthr...n-though-I-am-a-Christian&p=382833#post382833

Since you were a Christian apologist it is likely that your beliefs fell on the conservative side of the spectrum. I am considered more a moderate on that spectrum, so some of your assumptions about me are likely incorrect.

Farther on in this thread, I asked a question: did you intend to infer that religious people as a whole are responsible for adverse impacts on science and education? I am very interested to learn your answer.

Ruth

 

[Ruth Harris]

Science doesn't work on the principle of faith.

Faith in God does not work on scientific principles. Love doesn't work on scientific principles either. Does that invalidate love? Both are intangible concerns; science is involved with tangible concerns. I have absolutely no hesitation in saying that science will never prove or disprove faith, any more than it can prove or disprove love. That is not the sphere of science. Likewise, faith or love will never prove or disprove science.

Ruth

Faith by definition is a belief held without the support of evidence. Science requires evidence.

That is what I just said. One is tangible, one is intangible. So there is no conflict there as they are concerned with different spheres.

Ruth

 

[Learner]

Kind of like the sheep and the goats--or the wheat and the chaff, is it not? If you don't like being "tarred with the same brush," then tell Jesus not to do it to other people.

Anyway, I see that you detest being lumped in with other Christians. Why is that?

Forgive me for interjecting, but I pretty much agree with Ruths posts. The reasons are easy - I don't doubt Ruth would agree with me that we both wouldn't want to be connected with prosperity churches, as an obvious example among others. Quoting your "Then tell Jesus not to do it to other people" there is a better and clearer context to this part of the narrative, when Jesus warns believers of false doctrine and false prophets under the guise of Christianity whilst preaching in His name i.e. don't be lumped in with them..

 

[DBT]

Faith by definition is a belief held without the support of evidence. Science requires evidence.

That is what I just said. One is tangible, one is intangible. So there is no conflict there as they are concerned with different spheres.

Ruth

The conflict lies between faith and science based models of the world, special creation as opposed to natural processes, evolution cosmology, etc.

 

[Ruth Harris]

Faith by definition is a belief held without the support of evidence. Science requires evidence.

That is what I just said. One is tangible, one is intangible. So there is no conflict there as they are concerned with different spheres.

Ruth

The conflict lies between faith and science based models of the world, special creation as opposed to natural processes, evolution cosmology, etc.

Ah - not for all of us. Actually, not for most of us. Only the most conservative believers are fixated on those ideas. There is nothing unbiblical about evolution in any subject; I have stated that before. And I don't have the temerity to state that I know the method God used to create the universe. It could very well have been a natural process He started. My only fixed belief on these matters is that the source of all is God. Everything else is up for discussion.

Ruth

 

[Keith&Co.]

Agreed Ruth. Some atheists I've come across, talk as if science is the sole property of atheism.

But IIRC, you're one who constantly posits evolutionary theory as an atheist choice.

 

[steve_bank]

Kind of like the sheep and the goats--or the wheat and the chaff, is it not? If you don't like being "tarred with the same brush," then tell Jesus not to do it to other people.

Anyway, I see that you detest being lumped in with other Christians. Why is that?

Forgive me for interjecting, but I pretty much agree with Ruths posts. The reasons are easy - I don't doubt Ruth would agree with me that we both wouldn't want to be connected with prosperity churches, as an obvious example among others. Quoting your "Then tell Jesus not to do it to other people" there is a better and clearer context to this part of the narrative, when Jesus warns believers of false doctrine and false prophets under the guise of Christianity whilst preaching in His name i.e. don't be lumped in with them..

The prosperity church is the flip side of the suffering church. Offer your suffering to god and earn an eternal reward. Christianity is a cult of pain. One weeps and empathizes with the image of a suffering Jesus. A bloody crown of thorns.

Christianity is a Chinese menu, pick one from column A and one from column B.

As to atheists claiming sconce as exclusive I have never heard that anywhere. 'Atkeisr Scince' is something yu hear on conservatives platforms like FOX News.

Newton, one of the greatest, was Christian although he held some contrary views in his day that could have gotten him into trouble.

Galileo remained Christian despite his persecution over science.

The path of science and math through history and cultures is easily seen. Arab Muslim science passed to Europe as a foundation.

I have herd Christians claim science is an exclusive European Christian invention.

 

[DBT]

The conflict lies between faith and science based models of the world, special creation as opposed to natural processes, evolution cosmology, etc.

Ah - not for all of us. Actually, not for most of us. Only the most conservative believers are fixated on those ideas. There is nothing unbiblical about evolution in any subject; I have stated that before. And I don't have the temerity to state that I know the method God used to create the universe. It could very well have been a natural process He started. My only fixed belief on these matters is that the source of all is God. Everything else is up for discussion.

Ruth

But it's not about us.

The World is either created by a God or gods, whatever they may be, or it is not.

It can't be both a special creation and the result and work of natural evolution.

 

[Learner]

The prosperity church is the flip side of the suffering church. Offer your suffering to god and earn an eternal reward. Christianity is a cult of pain. One weeps and empathizes with the image of a suffering Jesus. A bloody crown of thorns.

Ok, there are flip sides to everything then. Science being so benificial in many ways, improves even bigger nuclear yeild bombs...

Christianity is a Chinese menu, pick one from column A and one from column B.

They may not be that much of a difference with a lot of churches. Most agree with the begotten Son of God concept, which is the important factor of the faith. There are faiths that seem similar, but in their doctrine, Christ is not divine (I'm not in that camp).

And besides ... it's ALL there for us to see. Guiding examples have been provided (thoughtfully) taking from the churches of 'Smyrna & Philidelphia,' out of the seven churches, with examples of not what to do.

As to atheists claiming sconce as exclusive I have never heard that anywhere. 'Atkeisr Scince' is something yu hear on conservatives platforms like FOX News.

I said some of the atheists I have come across, talk 'as if' it's exclusive. You know ... those type of headlines, "Science v Creationism" sort of thing.

I have herd Christians claim science is an exclusive European Christian invention.

Don't lump me with that lot then.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Ok, there are flip sides to everything then. Science being so benificial in many ways, improves even bigger nuclear yeild bombs...

Is that really a 'flip' side, though? It's the same scientific method that gives us the Internet, whether we use it for porn or remote learning. Nuclear power or nuclear yield. Increased food crops or increased drug production.
It's not science that's being two-sided, it's the humans that get to use it.
As compared to 'christainity' including people on both sides of our civil war, insisting God wanted the Negro enslaved, and insisting God wanted them freed. Both sides quoting from the same sourcebook.

I said some of the atheists I have come across, talk 'as if' it's exclusive. You know ... those type of headlines, "Science v Creationism" sort of thing.

And there you go, again.
Not every theist is a creationist. Not everyone on the side of science is an atheist.

But you see "Science v Creationism" and you interpret it to say that Science belongs to atheists?
This is not about science or creationism, this is your bias. Again.

 

[atrib]

Science doesn't work on the principle of faith.

Faith in God does not work on scientific principles. Love doesn't work on scientific principles either. Does that invalidate love? Both are intangible concerns; science is involved with tangible concerns. I have absolutely no hesitation in saying that science will never prove or disprove faith, any more than it can prove or disprove love. That is not the sphere of science. Likewise, faith or love will never prove or disprove science.

Ruth

Agreed Ruth. Some atheists I've come across, talk as if science is the sole property of atheism.

To the OP Unknown soldier. I've seen some good civil debates and discussions between Christians and atheists. Craig v Hitchens for example having mutual respect, and still having a laugh. Of course on forums it varies but can also be respectful, so it's all fine by me, (as being adults).

Ruth is saying that science CANNOT be used to test the god hypothesis. Did you even read her post?

You should go back and read Hitchens' books and watch his videos again - he had no respect for magical thinking and was NOT shy about expressing his disdain for the behavior of some of the apologists he debated, including high-ranking Cardinals in the Roman Church and leading Jewish scholars. What debates have you been watching?

 

[Learner]

Ok, there are flip sides to everything then. Science being so benificial in many ways, improves even bigger nuclear yeild bombs...

Is that really a 'flip' side, though? It's the same scientific method that gives us the Internet, whether we use it for porn or remote learning. Nuclear power or nuclear yield. Increased food crops or increased drug production.
It's not science that's being two-sided, it's the humans that get to use it.

Ok, putting it that way, then of course I say the same thing - its down to the inviduals. No different in similar manner, when all sorts of people with different motives or agendas come under the Christian banner.

As compared to 'christainity' including people on both sides of our civil war, insisting God wanted the Negro enslaved, and insisting God wanted them freed. Both sides quoting from the same sourcebook.

Perhaps they were rather misquoting. People leading the way, having more of a politcal and power ethic than one of Christ.

I said some of the atheists I have come across, talk 'as if' it's exclusive. You know ... those type of headlines, "Science v Creationism" sort of thing.

And there you go, again.
Not every theist is a creationist. Not everyone on the side of science is an atheist.

Well at least you go along with what Ruth was highlighting, regarding 'tarring individuals with the same brush' etc..

But you see "Science v Creationism" and you interpret it to say that Science belongs to atheists?
This is not about science or creationism, this is your bias. Again.

I was talking about the very ones who 'think' its about science v creationism.

Fairpoint, I will admit I will have some biases naturally, but are you metioning this because atheists are free from them?

 

[atrib]

If you're informed about science then you know that Bible cosmology and earth history have been demonstrated by scientists to be bogus.

Before I take the time to answer you item by item, it would probably enable better understanding on your part if you read a thread I started a few years ago, and in particular this post of mine in that thread:

https://talkfreethought.org/showthr...n-though-I-am-a-Christian&p=382833#post382833

Christianity is a model of reality. A model that does not conform to our current understanding of how reality works, unless one is willing to ignore everything that is contradicted by science, and only focus on the aspects that are beyond the scope of scientific testing - i.e. only believe the claims that are unfalsifiable. Is that how you go about selecting which Bible verses are true, and which are to be ignored?

And no, the Earth did not stand still for Joshua. Anyone with even a basic understanding of celestial mechanics and our planet's geology will tell you that.