# Atheists, why debate christians? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [August 30, 2011, 9:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheists-why-debate-christians/594681 "2011-08-30T21:49:49Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 12
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [August 31, 2011, 10:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheists-why-debate-christians/594681/221 "2011-08-31T22:39:06Z")
> [@Omg\_a\_Black\_Conservative](#): > > Imagine this scenario. I read an unnamed book. Through reading that book, I come to adopt a certain viewpoint. Next, let’s say I was reading some book on atheism and now I’m a committed atheist. Well, let’s say I was reading the Bible and now I’m a committed Christian. Now, let’s assume I was reading a book on atheism and, after reading said book, I’m left feeling empty and unsatisfied, and as a result I turn to Christianity. And finally, let’s say I read the Bible and am turned off by it, thus becoming an atheist. To that, you’d now agree I arrived at my views rationally. I’m not sure he would, but I wouldn’t. What you’re describing is missing a number of important details. Besides, it wouldn’t be automatically rational to become an atheist after reading an atheist book (or, for that matter, a theist after reading a theist book), if it was a badly-written book or the decision was made on irrational grounds, like the book having a nice font or something. And what’s a “committed” atheist? Someone who _really really_ lives without theism? ---
**Author:** ![Princhester](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/3e96dc/32.png) [@Princhester](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Princhester)\ **Post date:** [August 31, 2011, 11:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheists-why-debate-christians/594681/222 "2011-08-31T23:47:22Z")
> [@Omg\_a\_Black\_Conservative](#): > > Imagine this scenario. I read an unnamed book. Through reading that book, I come to adopt a certain viewpoint. Next, let’s say I was reading some book on atheism and now I’m a committed atheist. Well, let’s say I was reading the Bible and now I’m a committed Christian. Now, let’s assume I was reading a book on atheism and, after reading said book, I’m left feeling empty and unsatisfied, and as a result I turn to Christianity. And finally, let’s say I read the Bible and am turned off by it, thus becoming an atheist. To that, you’d now agree I arrived at my views rationally. > > I’m going to assume that, in the first and fourth instances, you would say that I arrived at my views rationally. In the second and third instances, however, you would argue that I arrived at my views irrationally. But how can this be? In the above scenario, I read the same material but come to different conclusions. You have no basis under which to say I came to my views irrationally _except_ they disagree with your views. There are two issues. The first is whether you decided to believe in something by a rational process. The second is whether the belief itself is rational. It is not irrational to decide you will believe in a god because you find doing so makes you happy. However, this doesn’t mean that your belief in a god is itself rational. To illustrate: \*Imagine this scenario. I read an unnamed book. Through reading that book, I come to adopt a certain viewpoint. Next, let’s say I was reading some book which said that black isn’t the same as white and now I’m committed to the idea that black isn’t white. Well, let’s say I was reading a book called the Book of Grey (which says there is no differenced betwen black and white), and now I’m a committed Greyist. Now, let’s assume I was reading a book that says that black isn’t white and, after reading said book, I’m left feeling empty and unsatisfied, and as a result I turn to Greyism. And finally, let’s say I read the Book of Grey and am turned off by it, thus becoming a person who thinks there is a difference between black and white. To that, you’d now agree I arrived at my views rationally. I’m going to assume that, in the first and fourth instances, you would say that I arrived at my views rationally. In the second and third instances, however, you would argue that I arrived at my views irrationally. But how can this be? In the above scenario, I read the same material but come to different conclusions. You have no basis under which to say I came to my views irrationally _except_ they disagree with your views.\* I have re-written your examples to highlight your problem. Yes, you can rationally decide to be a Greyist because (as per the third example) it makes you happy. Greyism is still horseshit, however, because black is not white. ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [September 1, 2011, 12:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheists-why-debate-christians/594681/223 "2011-09-01T00:23:20Z")
> [@Omg\_a\_Black\_Conservative](#): > > Imagine this scenario. I read an unnamed book. Through reading that book, I come to adopt a certain viewpoint. Next, let’s say I was reading some book on atheism and now I’m a committed atheist. Nope. Right here your little scenario falls right on it’s face. I have seen threads on atheism before, and I don’t think I’ve ever seen someone say that they became a "committed atheist’ just because they read a book. That approach may work with the Bible and Christianity, however. ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [September 1, 2011, 12:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheists-why-debate-christians/594681/224 "2011-09-01T00:41:39Z")
Somewhere along the way, though, we apparently show our superiority and arrogance. Mustn’t forget that. ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [September 1, 2011, 1:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheists-why-debate-christians/594681/225 "2011-09-01T01:09:12Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > Somewhere along the way, though, we apparently show our superiority and arrogance. Mustn’t forget that. Wouldn’t want to be accused of false modesty, y’know. ---
**Author:** ![Omg\_a\_Black\_Conservative](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/7ba0ec/32.png) [@Omg\_a\_Black\_Conservative](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Omg_a_Black_Conservative)\ **Post date:** [September 1, 2011, 3:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheists-why-debate-christians/594681/226 "2011-09-01T03:00:15Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > How do you know he didn’t? Maybe he told Tex to keep it under his hat? Whether he told Tex or not, or what his reason was is not for us to ask. It is enough for us to know that his reasons are daffy. How do I know he didn’t? Because someone here, and I don’t remember his name, stated that he didn’t. > [@](#): > > No, they didn’t know Jesus was the Messiah even when he was alive. Mark says that the apostles were dense and never understood his identity. I’m 99% sure the disciples knew that Jesus was the Messiah when he was alive. > [@](#): > > Talk about a hanging curve ball. It wasn’t a curve ball. I’m well aware of the fact that there are individuals in the Bible who probably did not exist. I wanted to see if you were going to list any of the prophets, kings of Israel or apostles among the list of “fictional characters”. > [@](#): > > Those are just a few who are definitely fictional. There are a number of others whose historical existence is at least questionable (Solomon, for instance). Joshua and Solomon were real. > [@](#): > > I’m well aware of Tacitus (if you do a search on that word under my user name, you’ll see that I’ve referenced that exact quote many times myself. You also could have referenced Josephus), but Tacitus provides no corroboration for the supernatural claims of Christianity. Tacitus confirms, at best (and even this is not necessarily a given, since he could have gotten his information from other Christians rather than an independent source. The fact the he got Pilate’s title wrong [and anachronistically so] suggests that he wasn’t referencing a written record)) that a real guy named Jesus was crucified. So what? Most modern scholars think that Jesus was probably a real person, but that doesn’t mean he was magic or that he came back to life. You should go back and read what you said. You didn’t just say “corroboration for the supernatural claims of Christianity”. You said, and I’m going to quote you verbatim: [QUOTE=You] They don’t have any historical corroboration for anything. The core historical claims of Christianity are corroborated by nothing, and don’t even have any primary testimony (nothing in the New Testament was written by anyone who ever knew Jesus). [/quote] In other words, you stated that Christianity cannot corroborate **anything** it claims. As it stands, both the first and second sentences are simply false. Now you’re more than welcome to backtrack if you will, but don’t try to refrain from moving the proverbial goal posts. > [@](#): > > No because Tacitus gives no confirmation or corroboration for anything having to do with the supernatural claims of Christianity. Again, nice way to move the goal post. > [@](#): > > I answered your question. Those are not elements which would have any relevance to whether I believed them. They are meaningless and non-probative details in and of themselves. Would you be more likely to believe the diary of a 15th Century soldier saying he had squab for breakfast, or a claim from a 21st century blogger saying he had Bigfoot in his garage? You didn’t answer my question and, even now, you’re not answering my question. The choice in your stated example should be between believing a 15th century soldier saying he had a squab for breakfast on some specific date and between believing a 21st century blogger claiming that that soldier ate a squab for breakfast on some specific date. If it were me, I’d be more apt to believe the 15th century soldier than the 21st century blogger, as the 15th century soldier is the one doing the eating. > [@](#): > > The time is not as relevant as the demonstrable ahistoricity of many of their specific claims, the ludicrous, fantastic quality of others (the zombie assault on Jerusalem, for instance) and their lack of any provenance or primary sources. What zombie assault on Jerusalem? I must have missed that. > [@](#): > > It will take another thread. Are you going to respond to it if I start one? I’m not going to waste a lot of time and sweat if you’re going to ignore it. Go ahead. > [@](#): > > Do tell. What makes one scenario more credible than the other? > > Tex Avery died 30 years ago, so he isn’t going to contradict anything, and besides, we already have the word of Daffy Duck himself when he appeared to **Voyager** on the road to San Jose. No, he’s not going to because he dead, but the point was that if he was alive, the personal experiences he attributes to himself would be held as more true than the personal experiences others attribute to him. If you were to say “I’ve no supernatural experience” and I were to say “DtC has had numerous supernatural experiences”, which one of those statements do you think would generally be held to be true and which one false? > [@](#): > > You’ll have to explain why. I already did explain why. > [@](#): > > Not “decided,” _observed_. If you disagree, then all you have to do is show the basis. If you’re a Christian, your beliefs are based on the Bible. If you’re a Jew, your beliefs are based on the Talmud (as well as other Rabinnic literature). If you’re a Muslim, your beliefs are based on the Quran. And so on and so forth with almost every other religious group. What you’ve done, and this is typical of atheists in general,is that you’ve set up a situation in which you render the thing your opponent bases his or her beliefs on to be inadmissible on the basis that it’s not evidence, and when they fail to produce any other evidence of their beleifs, you pat yourself on the back and claim to have the intellectually superior and and unassailable position. This, though, is ridiculous. > [@](#): > > Wrong. I’m observing that they don’t have any evidentiary basis for their beliefs. No matter how many times you assert this-- a million or even ten million-- it’s going to be incorrect. > [@](#): > > The Bible is not evidence. That’s not an expression of capricious hostility towards the Bible, but as a matter of objective fact, it’s not evidence for magic. The Bible might not be _proof_, but it most certainly is _evidence_ of one’s claims and/or beliefs. > [@](#): > > Well, yes, the fact that the theist lacks any evidence at all for his claims is a huge advantage for the atheist position, that’s true. Again, this is _false_. You can keep repeating this until the world ends, and it won’t be anything other than false. What you mean to say is that the theists lacks evidence you will accept, which it what it boils down to. I’m cutting out a few responses, but the reality of the situation is that you’re demanding the theist start from a non-theistic position to prove that their beliefs are true, whereas the theist wants to start from their own theistic position to prove their beliefs are true. And for the theistic to do the latter, they must be allowed to use their given text upon which their beliefs are based. Unfortunately, you’re not even allowing the text to be presented in the first place. Seriously. This is like me getting in a debate with a Muslim but preventing them from using the Quran to argue their beliefs. Doing so cripples them from the beginning. If you were interested in true debate instead of pointless intellectual posturing, you would argue against someone’s beliefs or that which forms the basis of one’s beliefs. > [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > No, what constitutes a "rational basis,: is a basis grounded in empirical evidence. First of all, this is another demonstrably false statement, least because it means a decision, conclusion or belief reached in the absence of empirical evidence is irrational. This is nonsensical. If, for example, you were to believe that humans ar Second of all, as it relates to religious beliefs being ‘irrational’, I was going to type out something long and boring, but I’m far too lazy to do so. So [this](http://aphilosopher.wordpress.com/2007/05/10/is-the-belief-in-god-irrational/) will have to suffice. > [@](#): > > One popular theme these days is that the belief in God is irrational. As a philosopher, I find that view rather interesting. > > Whether a belief is irrational or not depends entirely on what is meant by “irrational” in this context. There is extensive debate in philosophy about this, but here are two intuitive ways a belief can be irrational. > > First, the belief is such that it cannot possibly be true. Two clear examples of this sort of thing include contradictions and contrary claims. A contradiction is a claim that is false in virtue of its logical structure-it cannot possibly be true. For example, the claim P & -P (“P and not P”). is a contradiction. Two claims are contrary when they both cannot be true at the same time (yet both could be false). For example, if someone believes that all killing is wrong and also believes that capital punishment is right, then he has beliefs that are contrary to one another. To believe claims that cannot be true would clearly be irrational. > > In the case of God, there seems to be no such problem. The claim “God exists” does not express a contradiction. In fact, philosophers such as St. Anselm have argued that the claim is necessarily true. > > The second way a belief can be irrational is in the way the belief is justified. In this case, a belief is irrational if it is based on evidence/reasoning that does not adequately justify the belief. In other words, beliefs that are based on fallacious reasoning are irrational. For example, if Jane believes that Hilary Clinton would be a poor president because Jane hates other women, then her belief is irrational. A person’s hatred of women has no relevance to the truth (or falsity) of the claim that Hilary would be a poor President. > > It is important to keep in mind that a belief could be mistaken, yet still not be irrational in this sense. For example, I believe that the computer in my office at FAMU is still there. It was there when I last checked, the door is kept locked, and the office manager goes to to office daily and would presumably call me if it was stolen. Given this evidence my belief that my computer is still on my desk is hardly irrational. But, I could be wrong. As I’m typing, someone could be loading the stolen PC into their car, eager to get the $15 it would no doubt command at a pawn shop. > > Turning back to God, many people believe in God for fallacious reasons. They believe because some people tell them to (fallacious appeal to authority). They believe out of fear (appeal to fear) or hope (wishful thinking). They believe because everyone they know does (appeal to popularity). In these cases, the belief in God would be irrational and unjustified. > > But, philosophy and theology are rife with cogent arguments for God’s existence. While one might dispute the arguments put forth by Anselm, Augustine, Descartes, Locke, Leibniz and others, they present considered arguments that make a reasonable case. A person who believes in God on the basis of considered evidence and reasoning is not irrational. She might be mistaken, but that is true of almost any belief-even those in the sciences. If a person disagrees with the conclusion of such arguments it is not enough to dismiss them as irrational. They must be properly engaged as arguments. By presenting such arguments, these thinkers have earned the right to be taken seriously. > > So, the general charge that belief in God is irrational is mistaken. Some people who believe in God are irrational in their belief and others are rational in their belief. ---
**Author:** ![Omg\_a\_Black\_Conservative](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/7ba0ec/32.png) [@Omg\_a\_Black\_Conservative](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Omg_a_Black_Conservative)\ **Post date:** [September 1, 2011, 3:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheists-why-debate-christians/594681/227 "2011-09-01T03:08:35Z")
> [@Princhester](#): > > There are two issues. The first is whether you decided to believe in something by a rational process. The second is whether the belief itself is rational. It is not irrational to decide you will believe in a god because you find doing so makes you happy. However, this doesn’t mean that your belief in a god is itself rational. To illustrate: > > \*Imagine this scenario. I read an unnamed book. Through reading that book, I come to adopt a certain viewpoint. Next, let’s say I was reading some book which said that black isn’t the same as white and now I’m committed to the idea that black isn’t white. Well, let’s say I was reading a book called the Book of Grey (which says there is no differenced betwen black and white), and now I’m a committed Greyist. Now, let’s assume I was reading a book that says that black isn’t white and, after reading said book, I’m left feeling empty and unsatisfied, and as a result I turn to Greyism. And finally, let’s say I read the Book of Grey and am turned off by it, thus becoming a person who thinks there is a difference between black and white. To that, you’d now agree I arrived at my views rationally. > > I’m going to assume that, in the first and fourth instances, you would say that I arrived at my views rationally. In the second and third instances, however, you would argue that I arrived at my views irrationally. But how can this be? In the above scenario, I read the same material but come to different conclusions. You have no basis under which to say I came to my views irrationally _except_ they disagree with your views.\* > > I have re-written your examples to highlight your problem. Yes, you can rationally decide to be a Greyist because (as per the third example) it makes you happy. Greyism is still horseshit, however, because black is not white. And if God descended down from the Heavens and proceed to carve his image on the moon, being an atheist would be irrational. Of course, if fishes were wishes… Okay. No, seriously. All you did was take my original post which detailed how one can come to a different conclusion regarding the existence of God based on some reading material, replaced it with something that can be empirically proven (i.e., “What color is this?”) and then have proceeded to argue that my original post was flawed because of this. It wasn’t. Your post, however, _is_ flawed, unless you believe that God has been proven to not exist. In the case He had, _then_ it would be irrational to claim that He exists. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [September 1, 2011, 3:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheists-why-debate-christians/594681/228 "2011-09-01T03:56:25Z")
> [@Omg\_a\_Black\_Conservative](#): > > How do I know he didn’t? Because someone here, and I don’t remember his name, stated that he didn’t. Someone speculated, but, as far as I know, Tex Avery never publicly stated that the Duck never told him not to spill the beans. > [@](#): > > I’m 99% sure the disciples knew that Jesus was the Messiah when he was alive. Not according to Mark. > [@](#): > > It wasn’t a curve ball. I’m well aware of the fact that there are individuals in the Bible who probably did not exist. I wanted to see if you were going to list any of the prophets, kings of Israel or apostles among the list of “fictional characters”. Daniel was fiction. David and Solomon may have been too (although david has the Tel Dan Stele in his favor). > [@](#): > > Joshua and Solomon were real. Cite? There is no historical or archaeological corroboration for either ofr them. Solomon’s kingdom definitely never existed, and none of the conquest attributed to Joshua. > [@](#): > > You should go back and read what you said. You didn’t just say “corroboration for the supernatural claims of Christianity”. You said, and I’m going to quote you verbatim: > > In other words, you stated that Christianity cannot corroborate **anything** it claims. I said it can’t corroborate any of it’s _core claims_. The mere existence and crucifixion of an itinerant preacher named Jesus is not a core religious claim. It;s also not even really verified by Tacitus. > [@](#): > > Again, nice way to move the goal post. I’m not moving the goal post, you just came up short. You have not provided any corroboration whatsoever for the core religious claims of Christianity. > [@](#): > > You didn’t answer my question and, even now, you’re not answering my question. I answered your question twice. The answer is that your question does not contain enough data to to give an answer. > [@](#): > > The choice in your stated example should be between believing a 15th century soldier saying he had a squab for breakfast on some specific date and between believing a 21st century blogger claiming that that soldier ate a squab for breakfast on some specific date. Incorrect. The choice is between believing a plausible claim or believing an impossible one. Impossible claims are not credible no matter how recently they were made. > [@](#): > > What zombie assault on Jerusalem? I must have missed that. Matthew 27:52-53 > [@](#): > > Go ahead. I’m sorry, but i find this non-responsive. If I’m going to start a new thread and put in the work required, I want to know that you’re actually going to read it and engage with it. Will you or won’t you? > [@](#): > > No, he’s not going to because he dead, but the point was that if he was alive, the personal experiences he attributes to himself would be held as more true than the personal experiences others attribute to him. If you were to say “I’ve no supernatural experience” and I were to say “DtC has had numerous supernatural experiences”, which one of those statements do you think would generally be held to be true and which one false? Tex Avery did not deny that Daffy appeared to him, so the question is immaterial, but, in point of fact, Tex’s denial would mean nothing because we have the word of Daffy Himself. > [@](#): > > I already did explain why. Where? In what post? Quote it again. > [@](#): > > If you’re a Christian, your beliefs are based on the Bible. If you’re a Jew, your beliefs are based on the Talmud (as well as other Rabinnic literature). IOf You’re a Jew your beliefs are still based on the bible. The Talmud is an adjunct to Jewish scripture, but the scripture is the Hebrew Bible (what Christians chauvinistically call the “Old Testament”). > [@](#): > > If you’re a Muslim, your beliefs are based on the Quran. And so on and so forth with almost every other religious group. What you’ve done, and this is typical of atheists in general,is that you’ve set up a situation in which you render the thing your opponent bases his or her beliefs on to be inadmissible on the basis that it’s not evidence, It’s NOT evidence. Do you dispute that? > [@](#): > > and when they fail to produce any other evidence of their beliefs, you pat yourself on the back and claim to have the intellectually superior and and unassailable position. This, though, is ridiculous. This is just projection on your part. If you don’t have the nuts, you don’t have the nuts. That’s not our fault. > [@](#): > > No matter how many times you assert this-- a million or even ten million-- it’s going to be incorrect. I assert that you have no evidence. That’s an exttremely easy assertion to refute if you actually do have evidence. you don’t. You want to enter the bible as evidence, but it isn’t. What else have you got? > [@](#): > > The Bible might not be _proof_, but it most certainly is _evidence_ of one’s claims and/or beliefs. You keep using that word. I don’t think it means what you think it means. > [@](#): > > Again, this is _false_. You can keep repeating this until the world ends, and it won’t be anything other than false. What you mean to say is that the theists lacks evidence you will accept, which it what it boils down to. No, it means you don;t have any empirical evidence whatsoever. Claims are not evidence. If you think you have evidence, put it on the table. You don’t have it. Your magic book _is not evidence_. Sorry, but it isn’t. Claims, in and of themselves, are not evidence. The supernatural claims of the Bible are exactly the thing that us being tested. To try to aver that they are true because the bible says so is circular bullshit. > [@](#): > > I’m cutting out a few responses, but the reality of the situation is that you’re demanding the theist start from a non-theistic position to prove that their beliefs are true, whereas the theist wants to start from their own theistic position to prove their beliefs are true. This is how it works. You don’t get to assume your own claims. You ahve to prove them. Have you had no training in science or debate at all? > [@](#): > > Unfortunately, you’re not even allowing the text to be presented in the first place. The historical/literal truth of the text is exactly what’s being debated. You don’t get to assert that it’s true just because it says so. Surely you can understand how fallacious that is > [@](#): > > . Seriously. This is like me getting in a debate with a Muslim but preventing them from using the Quran to argue their beliefs. If they were trying to say that [ial Qu’ran\* was evidence for supernatural claims, you would be right to do so. > [@](#): > > Doing so cripples them from the beginning. \So what? That’s their problem, not mine. If you want to make a claim, back it up with something beside the mere claim itself. > [@](#): > > If you were interested in true debate instead of pointless intellectual posturing, you would argue against someone’s beliefs or that which forms the basis of one’s beliefs. That’s exactly what I am doing. > [@](#): > > First of all, this is another demonstrably false statement, least because it means a decision, conclusion or belief reached in the absence of empirical evidence is irrational. It certainly is. > [@](#): > > This is nonsensical. If, for example, you were to believe that humans ar Something got cut off here. I’m sure it was devastating, though. > [@](#): > > Second of all, as it relates to religious beliefs being ‘irrational’, I was going to type out something long and boring, but I’m far too lazy to do so. So [this](http://aphilosopher.wordpress.com/2007/05/10/is-the-belief-in-god-irrational/) will have to suffice. I’m not interested in reading some blogger. If you can’t defend yourself, don’t bother. ---
**Author:** ![annadaniello14](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/96bed5/32.png) [@annadaniello14](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/annadaniello14)\ **Post date:** [September 1, 2011, 4:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheists-why-debate-christians/594681/229 "2011-09-01T04:20:20Z")
[/QUOTE] Why am I talking about something that does not exist seriously with someone who believes it does exist? [/QUOTE] Well, you don’t know these things don’t exist, obviously. No one does. BUT, atheists argue with Christians and Christians argue with atheists because Christians think they’re right and atheists think THEY’RE right and they need everyone else to agree with them so that they can feel secure about their beliefs. Sheesh. If a person is happy with his/her religion, LEAVE 'EM ALONE! It’s not hurting anyone. What happened to agreeing to disagree? :rolleyes: 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [September 1, 2011, 4:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheists-why-debate-christians/594681/230 "2011-09-01T04:35:47Z")
> [@annadaniello14](#): > > Sheesh. If a person is happy with his/her religion, LEAVE 'EM ALONE! It’s not hurting anyone. What happened to agreeing to disagree? :rolleyes: > > 🙂 History and memory. ---
**Author:** ![Cumberdale](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/8c91f0/32.png) [@Cumberdale](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cumberdale)\ **Post date:** [September 1, 2011, 4:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheists-why-debate-christians/594681/231 "2011-09-01T04:39:17Z")
> [@annadaniello14](#): > Why am I talking about something that does not exist seriously with someone who believes it does exist? [/QUOTE] Sheesh. If a person is happy with his/her religion, LEAVE 'EM ALONE! It’s not hurting anyone. What happened to agreeing to disagree? :rolleyes: 🙂 [/QUOTE] I’ll leave them alone if they leave me alone. Stop preventing me from buying wine on Sunday mornings. If I decided to drop my wife and marry a man, don’t prevent me from getting the same benefits I got while straight. Don’t put their god on my money or have him be in my pledge to my country. etc. etc. etc. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [September 1, 2011, 4:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheists-why-debate-christians/594681/232 "2011-09-01T04:48:17Z")
In real life, absent any particular challenge or harassment, I do leave religious people alone. My RL persona is much more low key than it is here, but this is a place where theists are _willing_ to debate, and I enjoy doing it for the intellectual challenge of it. Some of the theists here are pretty smart (albeit the smart ones don’t take literalist approaches to stuff like Noah’s Ark), and stand their ground pretty well. I actually enjoy it a lot more if my opponent has some intellect and wherewithal. It’s fun and it makes me work. The OP should understand that a lot of the debate that goes on here (and not just in religion threads) is done in the same kind of spirit as a pick-up football or basketball game. we play hard and give hard fouls, but it generally isn’t that personal and ifthere’s a defining characteristic of Dopers is that we’re people who like to argue. I do know that there are people who don’t like to argue, and find it uncomfortable (I’m married to one), and this probably isn’t the board for them. Honestly, though, if a lot of us couldn’t fight with each other, I don’t know what we’d do. We’re all Batmans and Jokers. we need each other. ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [September 1, 2011, 11:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheists-why-debate-christians/594681/233 "2011-09-01T11:20:52Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > In real life, absent any particular challenge or harassment, I do leave religious people alone. My RL persona is much more low key than it is here, but this is a place where theists are _willing_ to debate, and I enjoy doing it for the intellectual challenge of it. Some of the theists here are pretty smart (albeit the smart ones don’t take literalist approaches to stuff like Noah’s Ark), and stand their ground pretty well. I actually enjoy it a lot more if my opponent has some intellect and wherewithal. It’s fun and it makes me work. > > The OP should understand that a lot of the debate that goes on here (and not just in religion threads) is done in the same kind of spirit as a pick-up football or basketball game. we play hard and give hard fouls, but it generally isn’t that personal and ifthere’s a defining characteristic of Dopers is that we’re people who like to argue. > > I do know that there are people who don’t like to argue, and find it uncomfortable (I’m married to one), and this probably isn’t the board for them. Honestly, though, if a lot of us couldn’t fight with each other, I don’t know what we’d do. We’re all Batmans and Jokers. we need each other. Well said. We argue for the sport. No one is forced to come to the SDMB. ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [September 1, 2011, 11:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheists-why-debate-christians/594681/234 "2011-09-01T11:20:55Z")
When exactly did “atheism” become “not believing in God”, anyway? I thought “atheism” meant “without theism”, i.e. without religion. Religion doesn’t automatically mean “God”, after all. Heck, God may or may not exist, but even if God _does_ exist, I’ve no reason for confidence that any human religion has accurately described God’s nature (at least among the human religions that mention God), given all the contradictions among (and even within) the God-religions and not a whisker of proof between them. Looks to me like arrogance; believers who think “atheism” means you don’t share _their particular_ beliefs. ---
**Author:** ![Novelty\_Bobble](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/a3d4f5/32.png) [@Novelty\_Bobble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Novelty_Bobble)\ **Post date:** [September 1, 2011, 11:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheists-why-debate-christians/594681/235 "2011-09-01T11:32:17Z")
> [@Omg\_a\_Black\_Conservative](#): > > …the reality of the situation is that you’re demanding the theist start from a non-theistic position to prove that their beliefs are true… and where is the problem with making such a demand? at some point in your life you indeed started from a non-theistic position and made a choice to accept a set of beliefs. I assume that you did so because the evidence was strong enough. What I am interested in is what made you do that? and why \*that \*set of beliefs rather \*those \*? Why can’t you recount that thought process for us now? At some point you didn’t have your beliefs and now you do. Surely it must either have been a conscious choice on the basis of evidence, or the other option may be indoctrination/revelation of some type. If the former…explain why? If the latter it is intellectually more honest to admit a lack of evidence and/or rational choice and confess that it is more to do with comfort, gut feel or perhaps aesthetics. ---
**Author:** ![Novelty\_Bobble](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/a3d4f5/32.png) [@Novelty\_Bobble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Novelty_Bobble)\ **Post date:** [September 1, 2011, 11:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheists-why-debate-christians/594681/236 "2011-09-01T11:38:28Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > When exactly did “atheism” become “not believing in God”, anyway? I thought “atheism” meant “without theism”, i.e. without religion. Religion doesn’t automatically mean “God”, after all. > > Heck, God may or may not exist, but even if God _does_ exist, I’ve no reason for confidence that any human religion has accurately described God’s nature (at least among the human religions that mention God), given all the contradictions among (and even within) the God-religions and not a whisker of proof between them. > > Looks to me like arrogance; believers who think “atheism” means you don’t share _their particular_ beliefs. That is pretty much it Bryan, it is also seeks to shift the burden of proof. “aha! you are claiming that god doesn’t exist and you can’t prove it” That sort of thing. Really atheism just means that you don’t have a belief in a god, that is all. Some people may go further and make a positive claim about non-existence but that is not a necessary criteria for atheism. ---
**Author:** ![monavis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e0b2c6/32.png) [@monavis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/monavis)\ **Post date:** [September 1, 2011, 11:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheists-why-debate-christians/594681/237 "2011-09-01T11:52:27Z")
> [@Galileo](#): > > From the OP:Guess what? Christians _do_ exist. And, Christians say things, and they write things, and they do things. The debates are about these things, and not about non-existent things. > > The question of why anyone does anything can be answered scientifically, but it seems that many SDMB atheists are not interested in analyzing and evaluating their own behavior towards theists, nor are they interested in researching theists scientifically. For some, participating in theism/atheism debates is an amusing pastime. For some others, it’s an obsession. In either case, it’s an opportunity to present self-congratulatory arguments based on fragmented epistemology and limited self-awareness. And, some atheists are actually interested in discussing theism and learning more about the natural phenomenon of religious belief so that they can be in a better position to address various personal, social and political issues. > > Anyway, to answer **strugglingChristian** , if you want to understand why atheists debate Christians, examine why you started this thread. Then gather additional information, form an explanatory hypothesis, perform experiments to test the hypothesis, collect data, analyze the data, interpret the data, draw conclusions, publish the results in peer-reviewed journals, and then retest. > > Of course, this is what \*all \*SDMB atheists do when confronted with any issue. They want to make sure that there’s evidence for \*all \*of their ideas, thoughts, and beliefs. They can’t rely on what anyone _tells_ them – that’s not evidence. They have to examine the evidence themselves, because they are interested in “facts” which have meaning without any interpretation. And it can’t be just _any_ evidence. Nope, it has to be “scientific” evidence. Everything they do, everything they say, everything they believe must be based on the scientific method. Otherwise, they would be basing their lives on faith. And, there’s no way that they could possibly be like billions of other people. > > SDMB atheists are special. :dubious: Being fair, wouldn’t you also say that Believers also take their information from other humans? All written things, read things, thought things,or taught things, come from humans…that is a proven fact weither one is religious or not. ---
**Author:** ![Meatros](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/b4bc9f/32.png) [@Meatros](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Meatros)\ **Post date:** [September 1, 2011, 12:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheists-why-debate-christians/594681/238 "2011-09-01T12:09:16Z")
> [@Omg\_a\_Black\_Conservative](#): > > This is false. Let’s take Jesus’ crucifiction for example. Without using the Bible as reference, we’re left with a few, generally-regarded-as-authentic sources. One such quote: Tacitus can be used to support what some early Christians might have believed - he cannot be used to support the actual crucifixion. He was not a contemporary. Further, as I’ve pointed out in a few threads, why believe him? Why believe the Gospels? The people back then were not idiots - however they viewed the world radically differently than most modern people. They accepted miracles as normal occurrences. Josephus doesn’t bat an eye when reporting that a cow gave birth to a lamb. Do you believe that happened? [In this post](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=14195164#post14195164), I outline some of the problems I have with just accepting the Gospels. I think that it is inconsistent to accept one and not the other (the other being the incidents I mention). What are your thoughts? > [@Omg\_a\_Black\_Conservative](#): > > It isn’t just the fact that “these places exist”; it’s the fact that certain people exist in certain places which exist which can give credence to a particular statement with a degree of reliability. > > As it is, I guess we can score one for Christianity? If that’s ‘score one’ for Christians, then a similar line of evidence produces ‘score one’ for Vespasian curing a blind man with spit. Do you accept this? In a later post, you write: > [@Omg\_a\_Black\_Conservative](#): > > Joshua and Solomon were real. So you concede that the rest on that list were fictional? If so, why do you think they are in there? I’m not asking you do go through each and every one, but do you have an over-arching idea as to why (perhaps they are simply characters in a metaphor that is intended to make the reader learn something?)? > [@Omg\_a\_Black\_Conservative](#): > > The Bible might not be proof, but it most certainly is evidence of one’s claims and/or beliefs. Being charitable, the Bible is **anecdotal evidence** , at best. The NT, the Gospels in particular, are second/third hand anecdotes at that. You also say: > [@Omg\_a\_Black\_Conservative](#): > > I’m 99% sure the disciples knew that Jesus was the Messiah when he was alive. What do you base this certainty on? I don’t think we have access to what the original disciples ‘knew’ or believed. We could believe that they believed similar to Paul, but I wouldn’t put my confidence level anywhere near 99%. ---
**Author:** ![monavis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e0b2c6/32.png) [@monavis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/monavis)\ **Post date:** [September 1, 2011, 12:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheists-why-debate-christians/594681/239 "2011-09-01T12:12:27Z")
> [@Omg\_a\_Black\_Conservative](#): > > How do I know he didn’t? Because someone here, and I don’t remember his name, stated that he didn’t. > > I’m 99% sure the disciples knew that Jesus was the Messiah when he was alive. > > It wasn’t a curve ball. I’m well aware of the fact that there are individuals in the Bible who probably did not exist. I wanted to see if you were going to list any of the prophets, kings of Israel or apostles among the list of “fictional characters”. > > Joshua and Solomon were real. > > You should go back and read what you said. You didn’t just say “corroboration for the supernatural claims of Christianity”. You said, and I’m going to quote you verbatim: > > In other words, you stated that Christianity cannot corroborate **anything** it claims. As it stands, both the first and second sentences are simply false. Now you’re more than welcome to backtrack if you will, but don’t try to refrain from moving the proverbial goal posts. > > Again, nice way to move the goal post. > > You didn’t answer my question and, even now, you’re not answering my question. The choice in your stated example should be between believing a 15th century soldier saying he had a squab for breakfast on some specific date and between believing a 21st century blogger claiming that that soldier ate a squab for breakfast on some specific date. If it were me, I’d be more apt to believe the 15th century soldier than the 21st century blogger, as the 15th century soldier is the one doing the eating. > > What zombie assault on Jerusalem? I must have missed that. > > Go ahead. > > No, he’s not going to because he dead, but the point was that if he was alive, the personal experiences he attributes to himself would be held as more true than the personal experiences others attribute to him. If you were to say “I’ve no supernatural experience” and I were to say “DtC has had numerous supernatural experiences”, which one of those statements do you think would generally be held to be true and which one false? > > I already did explain why. > > If you’re a Christian, your beliefs are based on the Bible. If you’re a Jew, your beliefs are based on the Talmud (as well as other Rabinnic literature). If you’re a Muslim, your beliefs are based on the Quran. And so on and so forth with almost every other religious group. What you’ve done, and this is typical of atheists in general,is that you’ve set up a situation in which you render the thing your opponent bases his or her beliefs on to be inadmissible on the basis that it’s not evidence, and when they fail to produce any other evidence of their beleifs, you pat yourself on the back and claim to have the intellectually superior and and unassailable position. This, though, is ridiculous. > > No matter how many times you assert this-- a million or even ten million-- it’s going to be incorrect. > > The Bible might not be _proof_, but it most certainly is _evidence_ of one’s claims and/or beliefs. > > Again, this is _false_. You can keep repeating this until the world ends, and it won’t be anything other than false. What you mean to say is that the theists lacks evidence you will accept, which it what it boils down to. I’m cutting out a few responses, but the reality of the situation is that you’re demanding the theist start from a non-theistic position to prove that their beliefs are true, whereas the theist wants to start from their own theistic position to prove their beliefs are true. And for the theistic to do the latter, they must be allowed to use their given text upon which their beliefs are based. > > Unfortunately, you’re not even allowing the text to be presented in the first place. Seriously. This is like me getting in a debate with a Muslim but preventing them from using the Quran to argue their beliefs. Doing so cripples them from the beginning. If you were interested in true debate instead of pointless intellectual posturing, you would argue against someone’s beliefs or that which forms the basis of one’s beliefs. > > First of all, this is another demonstrably false statement, least because it means a decision, conclusion or belief reached in the absence of empirical evidence is irrational. This is nonsensical. If, for example, you were to believe that humans ar > > Second of all, as it relates to religious beliefs being ‘irrational’, I was going to type out something long and boring, but I’m far too lazy to do so. So [this](http://aphilosopher.wordpress.com/2007/05/10/is-the-belief-in-god-irrational/) will have to suffice. This all seems to me to be the fact that people are not really believing in God or “A” god, but they are believing in the person (or persons) who wrote, taught , or thought about what their idea of what a God is, or was. They desire for there to be a being,who existed before there was a place to exist. I wonder who created the place for God or “a” god to exist. If God is a being, then he couldn’t exist with out being in existence. ---
**Author:** ![Meatros](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/b4bc9f/32.png) [@Meatros](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Meatros)\ **Post date:** [September 1, 2011, 12:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheists-why-debate-christians/594681/240 "2011-09-01T12:32:34Z")
Something I was just now thinking about: On the SD, there seem to be a lot of skeptics that like to debate/discuss religious issues. The converse, theists who like to debate/discuss religious issues do not seem so prevalent **here** (on other MBs they seem to be more prevalent). This sets up a lopsided ratio. It can be intimidating to be the only one in a thread having to answer a 1/2 dozen skeptics. It’s also time consuming. I think this can lead to a heated discussion because the person defending their beliefs most likely is not going to spend hours rebutting every post from the skeptic. This leads to the situation where the skeptic basically feels like their arguments were handwaved away. I’m not sure if others see things this way, if this is a fair generalization, or what the solution is. It just occurred to me. Thoughts? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheists-why-debate-christians/594681.md?page=11) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheists-why-debate-christians/594681.md?page=13)