# 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:** 15
**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, 10:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheists-why-debate-christians/594681/281 "2011-09-01T22:16:54Z")
> [@Galileo](#): > > Are you now saying that counterarguments to cosmological arguments are not “fairly simple”? I’ll say it. Countering the Cosmological argument is childishly simple. > [@](#): > > And, these are your counterarguments that are laughably easy: That there’s no historical support for the resurrection Zippo. > [@](#): > > that Jews (who still believe in a god, right?) don’t accept Christianity, and that “your leaders” (seriously, do you have leaders?) are, what, the only ones who read the Bible in the original language? Well, I guess that does it. I’m sure that no Christian has ever thought about it that way. They must all be stumped right now. They must be saying: “Damn, we’ve been wrong for 2,000 years! That is so funny! Good thing we have **Voyager** to show us the error of our ways.” He said that Christian salvation theology is not justified by the OT (which it isn’t). This basically shows a logical flaw in Christian theology. Christians have historically tried to argue to the contrary (indeed, attempts are made in the New Testament itself), but nothing that holds up to examination. You first referred to “arguments for the Christian god”, but you’ve now changed it to two arguments that you know, and then you admit that you don’t know very many of the reasons for Christianity. It seems that you are in no position to comment on how easy the counterarguments are. Are you willing to retract your claim that they are “laughably easy”?I didn’t ask you why Christians accept things – I asked you for a concise, coherent explanation of why there are intelligent, educated Christians. Also, the “since childhood” riff is not an explanation. Why were the parents Christians, and their parents, and so on? It’s clear that you got nuttin’.I didn’t ask you to “refute god”. I asked you to support your claims: Claim #1. All the attempts at rational arguments for any god are fairly simple to refute Claim #2. The arguments for the Christian god as a special case for a god are laughably easy to refute. You have not provided support for your claims. But, thanks for trying. [/QUOTE] Try me, bro. I can easily and effortlessly refute any argument for any supernatural claim you want to make. Arguments specifically for the supernatural claims of Christianity are especially easy to knock down. ---
**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, 10:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheists-why-debate-christians/594681/282 "2011-09-01T22:27:59Z")
> [@Galileo](#): > > I didn’t ask you why Christians accept things – I asked you for a concise, coherent explanation of why there are intelligent, educated Christians. Also, the “since childhood” riff is not an explanation. Why were the parents Christians, and their parents, and so on? Well, if that’s your question, boiled down, “since childhood” is quite a good response, and for your follow-up question of why the parents were Christian, a few good responses come to mind: 1. One’s Christianity doesn’t necessarily come from one’s parents (though the 90%+ correlation of one’s religion to one’s parents`religion is telling). One could become a Christian after being converted by a missionary or being exposed to Christianty in some social way. I’m not aware of anyone who ever “discovered” Christianity wholly independently, aside from (presumably) the first Christian. 2. The parents might be Christians, but they aren’t necessarily the same _type_ of Christians. The religion itself is undergoing constant evolution in response to the surrounding environment, and Christians widely seperated by geography (i.e. compare a Christian in Oregon to one in Rumania) or time (i.e. compare a Christian in modern-day Germany to one in 14th-century Germany) and there can be quite the variance in rituals and icons and whatnot, to the point where one Christian looks at the other’s Christianity and declares it to be wildly incorrect. The Catholic Church could enforce a fair degree of uniformity, but they do not represent all Christians and even with Catholicism are schisms and whatnot. 3. Christianity itself didn’t just spring into existence - it absorbed numerous traditions from existing faiths, cobbling them together into a successful pattern based on a few simple ideas that actually have no real evidence going for them: 3a. God exists. 3b. Jesus is/was his son. 3c. Some stuff about original sin being resolved and such… There are intelligent, educated people who find baseball fascinating, and its traditional forms have (with a few minor evolutionary changes here and there) have been around for 200 years, more or less. It’s fine that they enjoy it, but if they try to assign the game some cosmic significance, they take their chances at being lampooned and dismissed for it. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [September 1, 2011, 10:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheists-why-debate-christians/594681/283 "2011-09-01T22:42:16Z")
> [@Galileo](#): > > Are you now saying that counterarguments to cosmological arguments are not “fairly simple”? > > And, these are your counterarguments that are laughably easy: That there’s no historical support for the resurrection, that Jews (who still believe in a god, right?) don’t accept Christianity, and that “your leaders” (seriously, do you have leaders?) are, what, the only ones who read the Bible in the original language? Well, I guess that does it. I’m sure that no Christian has ever thought about it that way. They must all be stumped right now. They must be saying: “Damn, we’ve been wrong for 2,000 years! That is so funny! Good thing we have **Voyager** to show us the error of our ways.” Much of Christianity is predicated on misreadings of the Bible, for instance by the person who wrote Matthew. The actual Messianic prophecies have little or nothing to do with the claims about Jesus. > [@](#): > > You first referred to “arguments for the Christian god”, but you’ve now changed it to two arguments that you know, and then you admit that you don’t know very many of the reasons for Christianity. It seems that you are in no position to comment on how easy the counterarguments are. Are you willing to retract your claim that they are “laughably easy”?I didn’t ask you why Christians accept things – I asked you for a concise, coherent explanation of why there are intelligent, educated Christians. Also, the “since childhood” riff is not an explanation. Why were the parents Christians, and their parents, and so on? It’s clear that you got nuttin’.I didn’t ask you to “refute god”. I asked you to support your claims: Like everyone else in this country, I have been inundated with Christian claims. The top ones, off the top of my head, are: 1. It must have happened because the Bible, written by eyewitnesses, says so. I trust I don’t have to refute that one, not after the current threads. 2. It is true because it fulfilled the prophecies in the OT, as you call it. No, because we don’t know what part of the story was made up to fulfill prophecies (like the virgin birth, which fulfilled a nonexistent prophecy) and that most of the so-called prophecies are tortured misreadings not in any way resembling their purpose. 3. Christianity must be right because it grew so fast. So must Islam, then. As for parents, Hinduism must be correct because Hindus have Hindu parents who have Hindu parents and so on. Plus, for most of Western history, deciding not to be a Christian was not good for your health. (Trust me, this is in my genes.) If that is your argument, it is hilariously easy to refute. > [@](#): > > Claim #1. All the attempts at rational arguments for any god are fairly simple to refute > Claim #2. The arguments for the Christian god as a special case for a god are laughably easy to refute. > > You have not provided support for your claims. But, thanks for trying. My definition of fairly simple might involve more complicated arguments than most people’s, I must say, but then I spend a lot of time analyzing arguments when reviewing papers, etc. The arguments **Liberal** made for God were not easy to refute, and were better thought out and more logical than any others I’ve seen in almost 40 years of doing this on-line. But, survey the arguments for God around here. They are pretty much first cause arguments and “you can’t disprove it” arguments. Both fairly easy. Now that I’ve given some Christian arguments and their refutations, why not give some good ones if you don’t like the ones I gave. I admit I’ve only read the NT once, and was not impressed. From the perspective of someone not indoctrinated in Jesus from an early age, the whole thing seems as about a believable as a cargo cult, except that the planes did actually show up once. (I think Jesus did live, btw, but he didn’t do any miracles.) ---
**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, 11:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheists-why-debate-christians/594681/284 "2011-09-01T23:04:39Z")
> [@Galileo](#): > > I see. More unsupported claims. > > Okay, it gets a bit confusing when someone is making a claim about claims, but this is what you said: > > 1. The claims for the existence of a Christian god are asserted without evidence. > 2. I have yet to hear a claim that was otherwise. > 3. Therefore they can be safely rejected without further thought. > > Please provide support for Statement #1. OK, here…I hope you accept, are the commonly cited best proofs of the existence of god. > [@](#): > > TRANSCENDENTAL ARGUMENT, a.k.a. PRESUPPOSITIONALIST (I) > (1) If reason exists then God exists. > (2) Reason exists. > (3) Therefore, God exists. > COSMOLOGICAL ARGUMENT, a.k.a. FIRST CAUSE ARGUMENT (I) > (1) If I say something must have a cause, it has a cause. > (2) I say the universe must have a cause. > (3) Therefore, the universe has a cause. > (4) Therefore, God exists. > ONTOLOGICAL ARGUMENT (I) > (1) I define God to be X. > (2) Since I can conceive of X, X must exist. > (3) Therefore, God exists. > ONTOLOGICAL ARGUMENT (II) > (1) I can conceive of a perfect God. > (2) One of the qualities of perfection is existence. > (3) Therefore, God exists. > MODAL ONTOLOGICAL ARGUMENT > (1) God is either necessary or unnecessary. > (2) God is not unnecessary, therefore God must be necessary. > (3) Therefore, God exists. > ARGUMENT FROM DESIGN, a.k.a. GOD OF THE GAPS, a.k.a. TELEOLOGICAL ARGUMENT (I) > (1) Check out the world/universe/giraffe. Isn’t it complex? > (2) Only God could have made them so complex. > (3) Therefore, God exists. > ARGUMENT FROM BEAUTY, a.k.a. DESIGN/TELEOLOGICAL ARGUMENT (II) > (1) Isn’t that baby/sunset/flower/tree beautiful? > (2) Only God could have made them so beautiful. > (3) Therefore, God exists. > ARGUMENT FROM MIRACLES (I) > (1) My aunt had cancer. > (2) The doctors gave her all these horrible treatments. > (3) My aunt prayed to God and now she doesn’t have cancer. > (4) Therefore, God exists. There are more of course but I shan’t bore everyone with the rest. They are all asserted without evidence and remember, these are the distillation of the best theological and philosophical minds of history…you have something novel and new? I’d love to hear it. > [@](#): > > For Statement #2, I can’t dispute what you claim to have heard, so I’ll just suggest that you Google “evidence of god” and take a look at some of the hits. The point isn’t whether you accept the evidence, but it’s obvious that there are many Christians who claim that there is evidence for God (making #1 false), and once you look at some of the sites, statement #2 will become false. You can, of course, choose to remain ignorant (and #2 remains true) but I’m guessing you’ll take a look. Heard them all before, there is never anything novel put forward as evidence and never anything that rises above anecdote, question begging and circular reasoning. If you do have anything substantial let me know and we can discuss it, though I can already see you have a much loser definition of “evidence” than I do. > [@](#): > > Your explanation is a bit like explaining the weather by referring to the sun, air pressure, and humidity. Close, but some of the factors are missing, and the key to a coherent explanation is how those factors work specifically and how they interact. Of course it is an imperfect explanation, my own view is that we use rational enquiry and empiricism to build a more useful model. Whereas the traditional approach of religion is to preserve ignorance for as long as possible, to keep asserting “god did it” until forced by scientific progress to concede defeat. ---
**Author:** ![Calculon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/b5a626/32.png) [@Calculon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Calculon)\ **Post date:** [September 1, 2011, 11:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheists-why-debate-christians/594681/285 "2011-09-01T23:06:42Z")
> [@Galileo](#): > > I see. More unsupported claims. > > Okay, it gets a bit confusing when someone is making a claim about claims, but this is what you said: > > 1. The claims for the existence of a Christian god are asserted without evidence. > 2. I have yet to hear a claim that was otherwise. > 3. Therefore they can be safely rejected without further thought. > > Please provide support for Statement #1. > For Statement #2, I can’t dispute what you claim to have heard, so I’ll just suggest that you Google “evidence of god” and take a look at some of the hits. The point isn’t whether you accept the evidence, but it’s obvious that there are many Christians who claim that there is evidence for God (making #1 false), and once you look at some of the sites, statement #2 will become false. You can, of course, choose to remain ignorant (and #2 remains true) but I’m guessing you’ll take a look. > > Since #1 and #2 are false, your conclusion in #3 is not supported. Not bad, but I’m looking for a bit more detail. Your explanation is a bit like explaining the weather by referring to the sun, air pressure, and humidity. Close, but some of the factors are missing, and the key to a coherent explanation is how those factors work specifically and how they interact.I didn’t insist on first-hand research. I said “preferably”. As it turns out, you’ve provided no research or evidence. In my experience debating religion with the Straight Dope atheists is like debating with a parrot. All you get is the same few phrases repeated over and over. _Sqwark_ There is no evidence for God _Sqwark_ It’s up to religious people to prove their claims _Squark_ I don’t think I have ever seen an SDMB atheist give a coherent, reasonable argument as to why anyone should accept atheism. They all rely on the fallacious logic that unless religion generally or Christianity specifically is proven then atheism is somehow true. It is also a statement of faith amoung these people that there is actually no evidence for religion, since this belief is never supported by arguement or it seems based on observation and evidence. I might be surprised and someone in this thread might make a genuine attempt to address these issues, but I doubt it. Calculon. ---
**Author:** ![Calculon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/b5a626/32.png) [@Calculon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Calculon)\ **Post date:** [September 1, 2011, 11:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheists-why-debate-christians/594681/286 "2011-09-01T23:11:43Z")
> [@Novelty\_Bobble](#): > > OK, here…I hope you accept, are the commonly cited best proofs of the existence of god. These are obvious mis-characterisations and parodies of a number of arguments. The fact that you apparently can’t tell the difference between these and the actual well formulated arguments speaks volumes. Calculon. ---
**Author:** ![Snarky\_Kong](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a183cd/32.png) [@Snarky\_Kong](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Snarky_Kong)\ **Post date:** [September 1, 2011, 11:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheists-why-debate-christians/594681/287 "2011-09-01T23:17:57Z")
> [@Calculon](#): > > It is also a statement of faith amoung these people that there is actually no evidence for religion Give me one piece of actual evidence and you’ll never hear that statement from this atheist again. Also, do you believe in the IPU? If not, why not? If not, what’s different about God? ---
**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, 11:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheists-why-debate-christians/594681/288 "2011-09-01T23:22:26Z")
> [@Calculon](#): > > In my experience debating religion with the Straight Dope atheists is like debating with a parrot. All you get is the same few phrases repeated over and over. > > _Sqwark_ > There is no evidence for God > _Sqwark_ > It’s up to religious people to prove their claims > _Squark_ That’s pretty much all we need. You have the burden of proof, not us. > [@](#): > > I don’t think I have ever seen an SDMB atheist give a coherent, reasonable argument as to why anyone should accept atheism. What does “accept atheism” mean? Atheism isn’t anything to accept. it’s not a belief, it’s an absence of belief. It requires no argument. It’s the logical default. > [@](#): > > They all rely on the fallacious logic that unless religion generally or Christianity specifically is proven then atheism is somehow true. Atheism is not something that can be “true” or “untrue.” It’s not an assertion. It’s an absence of assertion. > [@](#): > > It is also a statement of faith amoung these people that there is actually no evidence for religion, There is abundant evidence for religion. Religion is all around us. There is, however, no evdience for any of the supernatural claims made by religion. > [@](#): > > since this belief is never supported by arguement or it seems based on observation and evidence. > > I might be surprised and someone in this thread might make a genuine attempt to address these issues, but I doubt it. What kind of circular horseshit is this? I don’t even know what you’re asking for. You want us to prove there’s no evidence? The proof is the deafening lack of evidence. It speaks for itself. ---
**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, 11:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheists-why-debate-christians/594681/289 "2011-09-01T23:25:34Z")
> [@Calculon](#): > > In my experience debating religion with the Straight Dope atheists is like debating with a parrot. All you get is the same few phrases repeated over and over. > > _Sqwark_ > There is no evidence for God > _Sqwark_ > It’s up to religious people to prove their claims > _Squark_ I can’t help it if this is a simpler concept than you’d prefer it to be. If you can’t wrap your head around why we find the evidence lacking and why the burden of proof lies with those who claim that gods exist…well, you are going to struggle here. > [@](#): > > I don’t think I have ever seen an SDMB atheist give a coherent, reasonable argument as to why anyone should accept atheism. Seriously? “There is not sufficient evidence for the existence of god” You surely must’ve seen that or a variation of it scores of times. Or perhaps not, well there it is now. Glad to help. > [@](#): > > They all rely on the fallacious logic that unless religion generally or Christianity specifically is proven then atheism is somehow true. It is also a statement of faith amoung these people that there is actually no evidence for religion, since this belief is never supported by arguement or it seems based on observation and evidence. You are confused here, no-one claims that there is no evidence for religion, I’m pretty sure I’ve seen a church before, big pointy things yes? Nor do I think anyone claims atheism is in some way “true” (whatever you mean by that). Merely that one is an atheist until given reason to be otherwise. It is the default state until one chooses to believe in a deity. > [@](#): > > I might be surprised and someone in this thread might make a genuine attempt to address these issues, but I doubt it. > > Calculon. you’ve already likened some posters to parrots, I suspect you aren’t quite ready to debate in good faith. ---
**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, 11:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheists-why-debate-christians/594681/290 "2011-09-01T23:36:46Z")
> [@Calculon](#): > > These are obvious mis-characterisations and parodies of a number of arguments. The fact that you apparently can’t tell the difference between these and the actual well formulated arguments speaks volumes. > > Calculon. The examples are tongue in cheek but the headlines are absolutely correct. In what way is the ontological argument misrepresented? or any of the others? if you want the dry facts have these > [@](#): > > The cosmological argument argues that there was a “first cause”, or “prime mover” who is identified as God. It starts with a claim about the world, like its containing entities or motion. > > The teleological argument argues that the universe’s order and complexity are best explained by reference to a creator God. It starts with a rather more complicated claim about the world, i.e. that it exhibits order and design. This argument has two versions: One based on the analogy of design and designer, the other arguing that goals can only occur in minds. > > The hypothesis of Intelligent design proposes that certain features of the universe and of living things are the product of an intelligent cause.[18] Its proponents are mainly Christians[19] and Jews.[20] > > The ontological argument is based on arguments about a “being greater than which cannot be conceived”. It starts simply with a concept of God.[21] Avicenna,[22][23] St. Anselm of Canterbury and Alvin Plantinga formulated this argument to show that if it is logically possible for God (a necessary being) to exist, then God exists.[21] > > Arguments that a non-physical quality observed in the universe is of fundamental importance and not an epiphenomenon, such as Morality (Argument from morality), Beauty (Argument from beauty), Love (Argument from love), or religious experience (Argument from religious experience), are arguments for theism as against materialism. > > The anthropic argument suggests that basic facts, such as humanity’s existence, are best explained by the existence of God. > > The moral argument argues that the existence of objective morality depends on the existence of God. > > The transcendental argument suggests that logic, science, ethics, and other serious matters do not make sense in the absence of God, and that atheistic arguments must ultimately refute themselves if pressed with rigorous consistency. > > The argument from degree, a version of the transcendental argument posited by Aquinas, states that there must exist a being which possesses all properties to the maximum possible degree in order for such properties to be coherent. > > The will to believe doctrine was pragmatist philosopher William James’ attempt to prove God by showing that the adoption of theism as a hypothesis “works” in a believer’s life. This doctrine depended heavily on James’ pragmatic theory of truth where beliefs are proven by how they work when adopted rather than by proofs before they are believed (a form of the hypothetico-deductive method). > > The argument from reason holds that if, as thoroughgoing naturalism entails, all human thoughts are the effect of a physical cause, then there is no reason for assuming that they are also the consequent of a reasonable ground. Knowledge, however, is apprehended by reasoning from ground to consequent. Therefore, if naturalism were true, there would be no way of knowing it—or anything else not the direct result of a physical cause—and one could not even suppose it, except by a fluke. See? less catchy and yet equally assertion heavy and evidence free. ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [September 2, 2011, 12:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheists-why-debate-christians/594681/291 "2011-09-02T00:04:49Z")
> [@Calculon](#): > > In my experience debating religion with the Straight Dope atheists is like debating with a parrot. All you get is the same few phrases repeated over and over. > > _Sqwark_ > There is no evidence for God > _Sqwark_ > It’s up to religious people to prove their claims > _Squark_ Of course. First, it’s a reasonable demand. Second, you don’t have any evidence, so it’s a good argument. And third, atheist arguments tend to be repetitive because religion is intellectually sterile. Religion doesn’t advance, it doesn’t come up with new evidence; it can seldom even come up with a new rhetorical ploy. Religion is blatantly stupid now for the same reasons it was yesterday, last year, last decade. You hear the same arguments from atheists over and over because there’s nothing new to argue against. Just the propped up corpse of a bronze age mythology. > [@Calculon](#): > > I don’t think I have ever seen an SDMB atheist give a coherent, reasonable argument as to why anyone should accept atheism. They all rely on the fallacious logic that unless religion generally or Christianity specifically is proven then atheism is somehow true. It is also a statement of faith amoung these people that there is actually no evidence for religion, since this belief is never supported by arguement or it seems based on observation and evidence. As said, it’s your obligation to provide evidence that your particular sky thug is real, not ours to demonstrate that there’s a lack of evidence for all the infinite numbers of possible nonexistent entities. You of course want to force atheists to prove a negative because whether you choose to admit it or not, you obviously full well know that there isn’t any evidence for your fantasy. If there was, you’d provide it because that would be such a strong argument for your side; but as you know there is no such evidence, so you try to use rhetorical tricks to make us look unreasonable for wanting evidence. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [September 2, 2011, 12:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheists-why-debate-christians/594681/292 "2011-09-02T00:26:57Z")
> [@Calculon](#): > > In my experience debating religion with the Straight Dope atheists is like debating with a parrot. All you get is the same few phrases repeated over and over. > > _Sqwark_ > There is no evidence for God > _Sqwark_ > It’s up to religious people to prove their claims > _Squark_ My hat is off to you, sir. Never in nearly 40 years of arguing about religion on line have I seen someone undermine his own credibility so efficiently. One of Dawkins’ main objections to religious arguments is that they involve special pleading. That yout think it is silly to be asked to “prove” (I assume you mean in the legal, not mathematical sense) your claim is exactly what he means. > [@](#): > > I don’t think I have ever seen an SDMB atheist give a coherent, reasonable argument as to why anyone should accept atheism. They all rely on the fallacious logic that unless religion generally or Christianity specifically is proven then atheism is somehow true. It is also a statement of faith amoung these people that there is actually no evidence for religion, since this belief is never supported by arguement or it seems based on observation and evidence. So, you think the argument that since we have never seen a flying purple-people-eater, and proponents of their existence have never “proven” (in the legal sense) their existence, the lack of belief in them is invalid? And why not spend some of the effort in objecting to claims that there is no good evidence for religion in providing some? it is obvious that anyone saying there is **no** evidence of religion is engaging in hyperbole, since even the guy caught murdering someone on film in front of thousands would no doubt present some “evidence” of his innocence. > [@](#): > > I might be surprised and someone in this thread might make a genuine attempt to address these issues, but I doubt it. > > Calculon. The only issue here is your lack of understanding of what constitutes a reasonable argument. ---
**Author:** ![Galileo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/85e7bf/32.png) [@Galileo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Galileo)\ **Post date:** [September 2, 2011, 12:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheists-why-debate-christians/594681/293 "2011-09-02T00:59:03Z")
> [@Voyager](#): > > Much of Christianity is predicated on misreadings of the Bible, for instance by the person who wrote Matthew. The actual Messianic prophecies have little or nothing to do with the claims about Jesus. Interesting, but what’s point? Are you still trying to demonstrate that it is “laughably easy” to dispute claims about the Christian god? You’re not doing a very good job. All you’re presenting is a bunch of unsupported opinions. > [@](#): > > My definition of fairly simple might involve more complicated arguments than most people’s, I must say, but then I spend a lot of time analyzing arguments when reviewing papers, etc. The arguments **Liberal** made for God were not easy to refute, and were better thought out and more logical than any others I’ve seen in almost 40 years of doing this on-line. But, survey the arguments for God around here. They are pretty much first cause arguments and “you can’t disprove it” arguments. Both fairly easy. I see. So now it’s not about arguments for God – it’s about arguments for God _around here_. I looked up some of **Liberal** ’s posts and it seems that he is/was a Christian, albeit a non-traditional one, and his arguments for God were based on the Christian God. You found his arguments “not easy to refute”, so they were neither “laughably easy” nor “fairly simple”. And, do you think that he is the smartest, most sophisticated theist in the world? Are you now willing to retract your claims? I’m pointing out that some atheists make unsupported claims and then don’t provide support for those claims, just like some theists. And, just like some theists, they tapdance, move the goal posts, use “no True Scotsman”, miss the point, address the wrong issue, and are just plain sloppy. I’m sure that you can do better than this, but I’m guessing you have little reason to do so. ---
**Author:** ![Galileo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/85e7bf/32.png) [@Galileo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Galileo)\ **Post date:** [September 2, 2011, 1:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheists-why-debate-christians/594681/294 "2011-09-02T01:03:58Z")
> [@Novelty\_Bobble](#): > > OK, here…I hope you accept, are the commonly cited best proofs of the existence of god. So you don’t know the difference between a claim and a proof. Not good. ---
**Author:** ![Galileo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/85e7bf/32.png) [@Galileo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Galileo)\ **Post date:** [September 2, 2011, 1:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheists-why-debate-christians/594681/295 "2011-09-02T01:05:51Z")
> [@Calculon](#): > > I might be surprised and someone in this thread might make a genuine attempt to address these issues, but I doubt it. I don’t believe in God. ---
**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 2, 2011, 1:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheists-why-debate-christians/594681/296 "2011-09-02T01:22:09Z")
> [@Galileo](#): > > Interesting, but what’s point? Are you still trying to demonstrate that it is “laughably easy” to dispute claims about the Christian god? It certainly is. Name one claim that isn’t. > [@](#): > > You’re not doing a very good job. All you’re presenting is a bunch of unsupported opinions. > [@](#): > > I see. So now it’s not about arguments for God – it’s about arguments for God _around here_. Try out any argument for any god you want. I will ruin any and all of them with considerable ease. > [@](#): > > I looked up some of **Liberal** ’s posts and it seems that he is/was a Christian, albeit a non-traditional one, and his arguments for God were based on the Christian God. You found his arguments “not easy to refute”, so they were neither “laughably easy” nor “fairly simple”. And, do you think that he is the smartest, most sophisticated theist in the world? Are you now willing to retract your claims? I never saw one of **Liberal’s** arguments that were not easy to refute, although it was often tedious and time consuming to do so because his argumentation was either very wordy and dense, or amorphous and vague or both. > [@](#): > > I’m pointing out that some atheists make unsupported claims and then don’t provide support for those claims, just like some theists. You haven’t provided any examples of that in this thread. ---
**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 2, 2011, 1:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheists-why-debate-christians/594681/297 "2011-09-02T01:25:51Z")
> [@Galileo](#): > > So you don’t know the difference between a claim and a proof. Not good. He summarized the classical proofs very well. Turns out none of them are actual proofs. I promise, you can’t offer any kind of argument for any kind of supernatural claim that I can’t easily refute. ---
**Author:** ![Princhester](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/3e96dc/32.png) [@Princhester](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Princhester)\ **Post date:** [September 2, 2011, 4:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheists-why-debate-christians/594681/298 "2011-09-02T04:07:10Z")
> [@Omg\_a\_Black\_Conservative](#): > > 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. You’re getting down to the point here which is this: reading some book and concluding something does or does not exist is neither inherently rational nor irrational. It depends on the facts and logic behind the subject matter. The book could be quite compelling or complete crap. What you are trying to do is skate over all that and pretend that merely because you can read some books about different topics and come to different conclusions, that makes all conclusions equally rational. What my version of your story shows is that you can’t do this. You have to consider whether the facts and logic are there, or not. There was nothing flawed about my post at all. Your conclusion to the contrary is based on the assumption that it is rational to believe in something unless it is proven not to exist. This is nonsense and I don’t think you believe it. Or do you think it rational to believe in invisible pink elephants and vanishing fairies? This point is made over and over in these thread and you (and your fellow travellers) never, ever get to grips with it or have any real reply. You will blather till the sun goes down about how your pet deity should get some slack because he hasn’t been proven not to exist, but you wouldn’t for a moment believe it rational to believe in every piece of nonsense that cannot be disproved. In the end, you just believe in your particular god because you grew up with the idea of it and give it special status. You call your god “supernatural” but what you really mean by that is not that your god is outside nature but that it is outside the zone in which you choose to apply rational thought. ---
**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 2, 2011, 4:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheists-why-debate-christians/594681/299 "2011-09-02T04:25:20Z")
> [@Galileo](#): > > I don’t believe in God. Do you feel that people who claim to are rational? ---
**Author:** ![sisu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/df705f/32.png) [@sisu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sisu)\ **Post date:** [September 2, 2011, 4:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheists-why-debate-christians/594681/300 "2011-09-02T04:46:25Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > Fine. Go be that kind of Christian and trouble us no more with this “God” stuff. That’s me. A secular Christian, yep also called a cultural christian whatever floats your boat. Allows me to function in a world that says it is following religion but in actual fact is only following cultural mores. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheists-why-debate-christians/594681.md?page=14) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheists-why-debate-christians/594681.md?page=16)