Do atheists think that debating Christian apologists is wrong?

[Learner]

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?

The bit in bold was just my opinion added.

The debates with Craig V Hitchens.. is as I said, what I watched. Between them I thought quite enjoyable to listen to from both men - wittingly entertaining. Quite civil and no whining complaints from Craig, especially when as you say, Hitchens would express his personal disdain for particular apologists or cardinals...

 

[atrib]

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

Intangible, as in cannot be observed and tested. You believe based purely on faith, because you want to, not because there are good reasons to. Faith can be used to justify pretty much any belief that you want to hold - universe creating pixies? Yes; time-traveling pan-dimensional cosmic toads? Sure; Santa Claus? Why not?

I have nothing against people believing whatever they want to. The problem arises when these people try to force their unsubstantiated beliefs into the lives of others, to create laws and rewrite science textbooks to fit their beliefs. You wouldn't do that because you know better, but many people don't.

 

[atrib]

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..

How do you tell the false prophets from the true one(s)? And false doctrines from the true one(s)? What is the test one uses to make these determinations?

 

[atrib]

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.
Ruth

The Bible explicitly states that the first humans were created by God, but you choose to ignore that. You pick and choose which verses to believe. You have to, since the Bible doesn't come with notes saying "Original verse - guaranteed 100% true" or "Probably made up -can be disregarded in an emergency".

 

[atrib]

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

Would you rather be living in a stone age culture grinding dry sticks to make fire, and worshiping the gods of the trees, the caves, the rivers and the mountains; or in the modern world where you can use the internet to preach about your imaginary friend, the One And Only True God - a world that also includes nuclear weapons?

 

[Keith&Co.]

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.

So anything humans touch is like anything humans touch.
But at least science makes an effort to remove personal bias from the process. Faith depends on 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.

Perhaps they were rather misquoting.

Well, once you start that road, you have to figure out if one or both sides were misquoting, or if they were properly QUOTING but the source material is just self-contradictory. And how you would tell.
And how your explanation of which is which would differ from anyone else offering their opinion/rationalization/apology.

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.

It IS science vs. creationism. One's using the evidence to find the truth, one uses the truth to filter the evidence. Because both prioritize different goals.
But it's still fucking stupid to use atheist and evolution as interchangeable. Atheist/science same same.

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

Oh, great. You're attempting to defend religion by trying to imply that science is 'just as bad.' And you're defending your errors by suggesting atheists 'are just as bad.'

 

[steve_bank]

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



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.

Atheists are not monolithic. Atheists can be as whacky as nay theists. You can find soebody to qute to su[[ort a [osition on nay topic.

Both religion and science are human creations. Over history Certainty has been a source of oppression, confect, war, and destruction. Catholics vs Protestants in North Ireland.

Scince s not a moral system. Collectively it tries to explain physical reality. That is all.

Morality and ethics in part is how science gets used. Today debate is grwing on the usage and harmful effects of social media which is based in the science of electromagnetics which governs electronics.

Today our mortality is profit at all costs and with little restraint regardless of consequences. It is some called 'the human condition'. Human civilization has always been about exposition and profit.

Science does not address existence of god or any such claim. Science addresses that which can be observed and measured and quantified. Individual practitioners have beliefs and personal morality. 'Science' is not a monolithic belief system, it is a prcess that evolved over time. There is no pope of science.

 

[Gnostic Christian Bishop]

I am not sure what an atheist is these days, but I see them as more moral and peace-loving and law abiding than the average genocidal, homophobic and misogynous god loving theist.

Statistics are clear on this.

If the more ill-informed and mentally lazy atheists are not more militant in fighting the evils the god religions continue to inflict on women and gays, the stats are over-rated and those atheists are no better than theists, regardless of belief.

Insert gays and women harmed by homophobic and misogynous religions to this quote. You should get an idea of what you should be doing with the homophobic and misogynous mainstream religions if you live by the golden rule.

Please get back to me with your conclusion.

Martin Niemöller
First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a socialist.
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out— because I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.

Regards
DL

Well, when I debated the Christians at CARM, I criticized them and their religion for their gay-bashing and misogyny and other ills. I got in trouble there for doing so, and some atheists in another forum told me that I deserved it. They may be some of those ill-informed and mentally lazy atheists you mention here.

Perhaps.

The more right wing the interlocutor the better. They need correcting the most.

Those mentally and morally lazy should remember inquisitions and jihads that were possible due to atheist silence against evil.

Homophobia and misogyny are only occasionally lethal today, but their vile mind control of them are among us as we speak.

The evil to grow and all that.

Regards
DL

 

[Gnostic Christian Bishop]

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.

Ruth

The way love is described by Jesus is definitely scientific as it is based on observation.

You will know mine by their works and deeds.

Without works, deeds and reciprocity, love cannot exist between two people.

Unconditional love, is of course, a stupid notion.

Regards
DL

 

[ideologyhunter]

By that definition, I'm a scientist whenever I put on my shoes and make sure of left foot, left shoe. Damn I'm smart.

 

[atrib]

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.

Perhaps you should go back to the source and read Exodus 21 again. There is no ambiguity about Biblegod endorsing slavery, and providing explicit instructions on how different slaves are to be treated. Hebrew slaves have special rules, while women get the short end of the stick, as is typical with the Bible. God's instructions in this matter are very difficult to misunderstand or misquote.

 

[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

With love, there is usually a physical person, their body and their pheromones, their brain and their conduct that you can observe and interact with. You can't do any of these things with a god. Loving another human is nothing like having faith in a god.

Love doesn't work on scientific principles either.

Really? Our bodies, sense organs, brains and pheromones have nothing to do with it? Those are all things that can be studied using scientific methods, and in principle, be used to explain the mechanisms that create the feelings in us that we call love.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

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

Again, the problem with all that is in the quantification. For example, "God loves me." Yet this same god will send me to hell. With love like that who needs hate? Honestly. Christians so love their neighbors that they baptize then kill them so to save their souls.

Without quantification, labels are meaningless.

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

Would I be correct in stating that categorically christianity is unscientific? If you disagree, if you are saying that christianity is not unscientific, please give a few examples that lead you to such a conclusion.

 

[Angry Floof]

I understand that many atheists do not like being exposed to religious arguments in particular Christian apologetics. Such atheists say that they find such arguments to be "annoying" and will not tolerate them. They see any kind of religious proselytizing as disrespectful. Many atheists are fair, though, and say that atheists arguing against Christian beliefs to Christians is also disrespectful. I personally enjoy debating Christians about their beliefs arguing against them. I especially tend to focus on Christian beliefs that I know can be harmful. So are such debates with Christians inappropriate?

It's not so much aversion to exposure as it is having been exposed ad nauseum to the same old lame arguments. Actively avoiding contradictory information is a trait that is much stronger among the religious and right wing ideologies than among atheists.

The vast majority of us were raised to believe in God or at least to believe that Christianity is the epitome of goodness. You don't become an atheist out of any level of religious upbringing if you actively avoid contradictory information.

The religious by and large do not have the problem of having listened to atheists' arguments over and over because very few of them actually hear atheists' arguments even once. Instead, they get the dehumanizing straw man versions through their tribal leaders, or whoever/whatever they consider the authoritative source of their beliefs and world view.

As an example, an apologist right here on this site a while back regurgitated one of those lies about atheists, that if we don't worship God, then obviously we just worship ourselves.

 

[ideologyhunter]

Can't remember the book, but years ago I came across a passage in a memoir of a world traveler who was staying with people in a drought-stricken area. I've forgotten the details except for an exchange she had with her host, who told her, "We went months without rain, and then it finally rained, and we all praised God." She asked, "Did you curse him, then, during the drought?"

 

[Ruth Harris]

Again, the problem with all that is in the quantification. For example, "God loves me." Yet this same god will send me to hell. With love like that who needs hate? Honestly. Christians so love their neighbors that they baptize then kill them so to save their souls.

Without quantification, labels are meaningless.

Okay, I have to say I have never heard of a Christian who baptized someone and then killed them. Where did you come up with that?

And I am not sure what you mean by "quantification". Can you clarify a little for me please?

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

Would I be correct in stating that categorically christianity is unscientific? If you disagree, if you are saying that christianity is not unscientific, please give a few examples that lead you to such a conclusion.

Not sure what you are asking here, but if you mean that the Christian faith does not have or depend on a scientific basis I would agree completely. The same is true of all theistic religions.

Ruth

 

[Unknown Soldier]

Well, when I debated the Christians at CARM, I criticized them and their religion for their gay-bashing and misogyny and other ills. I got in trouble there for doing so …

If you were posting at CARM and NOT getting in trouble for it, you’re probably a YEC. Definitely doing it wrong, anyhow.
That lot is the most unsalvageable bunch of morons I ever ran across.

The CARM folks are tough, all right. They became infuriated when I argued how their beliefs can cause harm to people. They called me names and insulted me and then said they have the love of Christ. One guy there was always making incoherent comments about God being in him and kept following that up with the phrase "which is love." I told him I don't want his love and that his God appeals no more to me than his used underwear does.

I got into trouble for that.

Anyway, I've seen CARM's founder Matt Slick on YouTube. I think his Bible is missing some pages.

 

[Ruth Harris]

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.

Sorry, I was assuming you were discussing the appearance of humans in the world, not the entire creation. The creation of man is typically called the special creation by Christians. I should have been clearer on that.

So in the terminology as you are using it, yes the universe would be considered a "special creation" to those of faith. What happens after that is where the discussion begins.

Ruth

 

[none]

Well, when I debated the Christians at CARM, I criticized them and their religion for their gay-bashing and misogyny and other ills. I got in trouble there for doing so …

If you were posting at CARM and NOT getting in trouble for it, you’re probably a YEC. Definitely doing it wrong, anyhow.
That lot is the most unsalvageable bunch of morons I ever ran across.

The CARM folks are tough, all right. They became infuriated when I argued how their beliefs can cause harm to people. They called me names and insulted me and then said they have the love of Christ. One guy there was always making incoherent comments about God being in him and kept following that up with the phrase "which is love." I told him I don't want his love and that his God appeals no more to me than his used underwear does.

I got into trouble for that.

Anyway, I've seen CARM's founder Matt Slick on YouTube. I think his Bible is missing some pages.

I had to laugh when they banned me for using alphanumeric characters.
They were so stupid they put in all caps "ENGLISH ONLY".
I was hoping they would be consistent and start banning for Greek and Hebrew and you know.
And that fvck Matt Slick took down his "Email exchange 'refuting' homosexuality "
He claimed the exchange ended when he won by saying "dogs give consent to have sex"
Fvcking idiots...
And he thinks he is slick because he copyrights and "you can't reproduce", fucking moron.

 

[funinspace]

Okay, I have to say I have never heard of a Christian who baptized someone and then killed them. Where did you come up with that?

Might have been in a Marilyn Manson song, so it must be true

I do have to say that atheists often seem to want all Christians to be Biblical literalists, or God-breathed Bible types. I find that odd, as us atheist aren't all the same either... So in general terms, I'd have to say I am on the same side as Ruth Harris on her points, like regarding Dr. Francis Collins. He called himself an evangelical Christian in his book: The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief. I don't know what he meant by the word "evangelical" as it tends to make people think of conservative Christians. But then again, one of the larger liberal Protestant sects, is the Evangelical Lutheran Church of America (ELCA), and they aren't literalists in any way shape or form...and they just recently installed a transgender Bishop.