Atheists, why debate christians?

[Calculon]

The reason that I would identify the typical SDMB as a bunch of parrots is that they continue to offer the same silly statements over and over again as if repeating them enough makes them true. Take for instance the argument that is the centerpiece of this discussion, which appears to be:

1. There is no evidence for the existence of God
2. Therefore God does not exist.

Formulated like this, the argument is simply invalid. The conclusion that God does not exist does not follow from the premise that there is no evidence for the existence of God. There are any number of things that exist for which there is no evidence. So for instance, prior to the 15th century there was no evidence for the existence of the planet Neptune. Following this type of argument then atheists would have to conclude that Neptune did not exist until it was observed, at which point it sprung into existence. This is clearly absurd, because the logic of the argument is invalid. Even if you take the first premise as being true, all that you can reasonably conclude from this argument is:

1. There is no evidence for the existence of God
   2*) Therefore God may or may not exist.

Since in this argument God may or may not exist, the statement that the claims of religion generally and Christianity specifically are wrong is simply irrational. There is no basis for that claim based on the evidence (or lack thereof) that we have. If you want to claim that a religion is wrong you need something more than just the general statement that “there is no evidence”

But what about the null hypothesis I hear you squawking? That is simply being abused in an irrational way. The logic behind a “null hypothesis” flows from having statements that necessarily flow from one another. So for instance say you have claim A, which is difficult to test directly. To find out if A is true you find another statement B which must be true if A is true. You then test B to find out if it is true. If B is true, that helps to confirm that A is indeed true. If it is not, then the null hypothesis, not A is confirmed.

So for instance in a drug trial the statement “This drug cures cancer” is impossible to definitively test. So what researchers do is find a statement that must be true if the drug does actually cure cancer. So here the B statement is “patients given this drug will do better than those without”. This statement is easy to test, and so the experiments are carried out. If the B statement is not true, then that means that the A statement cannot be true. So the null hypothesis, that the drug does not cure cancer is confirmed. If the patients given the drug do better than the control group, then it is likely that the drug does actually work. Note that the test is not really on the claim whether the drug actually works or not, it is on what happens to the specific groups of patients. From this the activity of the drug is inferred. Also note that until statement B is tested, it is simply unknown whether or not the drug works. No-one assumes that the drug does not work, otherwise why do the experiments in the first place? Drug trials are expensive, and why bother if you already know the activity of the drug? The null can only be confirmed with actual evidence, that a statement is not true, not simple lack of evidence.

What does this have to do with atheist arguments? Simply that the null argument here is not being applied in a logical, rational way. If you take as your A statement “God exists”, to logically use the null hypothesis you have to identify some statement or evidence that necessarily must be true if God does exist, and then demonstrate that this is not true. Without this the appeal to the null hypothesis is simply pseudo-scientific claptrap. To appeal to a null hypothesis you need some sort of reason or evidence which demonstrates that it is more likely than it’s negation. It is not simply true by default, or until proven otherwise.

Calculon.

[sisu]

@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.

I might be surprised and someone in this thread might make a genuine attempt to address these issues, but I doubt it.

Calculon.

Hi Cal,

I am not here to convince you that your faith is wrong, all I can do is show you that my lack of faith is not wrong either.

God is and has always been mankind’s way of dealing with the great unknown.

We cannot define what god is, so how can I believe it? If someone one day can define what god is, then maybe just maybe I might come around. And no i will not accept the bible as the literal word of god. It was written by men.

At this stage I am firmly of the view that a lack of faith is a humble position to take, I do not have the arrogance to say I understand what is unknown, religion does.

So your religion is IMO a cultural position and I respect that but I cannot accept it.

[Calculon]

Secondly, I don’t think that it is at all clear that the fundamental premise that there is no evidence for the existence of God is in fact true. There are several problems with this statement:

1. It is on it’s face absurd, because it underlies a claim to omniscience. Unless you know all true statements then there is not possible that you can know that there is no evidence for something. The only other way that someone could justify such a broad claim is by taking as a premise that God does not exist, therefore there can be no evidence of his existence. However since the existence of God is the question at hand, this is simply circular.

2. It may be true that an individual may have not seen any evidence for the existence of God, but that in of itself is not very meaningful. There is no reason why reality should conform to the expectations of any individual. Maybe if you looked harder you might find some evidence?

3. The claim that there is no evidence for the existence of God also seems absurd to me because all throughout history and even today many people have claimed to have witnessed supernatural events which would count as at least “evidence” (even if it is not conclusive evidence) that God (in the general, broad sense) may actually exist. While not all of these supernatural events may be genuine, to dismiss them all out of hand without any real argument, while insisting that there is no “evidence” is simply absurd and circular. If you wish to discount all of these claims then you need some sort of coherent argument as to why they all should not be counted as evidence. The two common tactics that you see are:

a) The “I believe in one less miracle than you” approach where other dubious miracles are dragged up and it is insisted that if you don’t believe that these miracles happened, then your argument is special pleading. The argument though is fallacious because each claim needs to be evaluated on it’s own merits. So for instance if I am skeptical of Vespasian healing the sight of some guy, that does not mean that the resurrection of Jesus could not have happened. The evidence for the Vespasian miracle is rather dubious (it is not even clear that one of the recorders of the miracle, Tacitus, actually believe it took place) while the evidence for the resurrection is quite good. This line of argument is like saying that if I accept evolution, then because I accept science I should also accept the claims of phrenology or other such things. The two cases are independent and you can believe one without the other.

b) The “there is no evidence because miracles are impossible” argument. This is clearly a circular argument because it becomes “God does not exist because there is no evidence” and " there is no evidence because God does not exist".

Unless there is some reason or argument given that the statement “There is no evidence for the existence of God” is more likely true than it’s negation, then I simply do not accept that there is in fact no evidence for the existence of God.

Calculon.

[Calculon]

@Galileo

I don’t believe in God.

Let me say that I appreciate the argument that you are making in this thread, and I see you as a different type of atheist. It is a problem in the language that there is no common labels that delineate different atheist positions. While I ultimately think that they are mistaken, I think it is possible to be a rational, well thought through atheist. They just tend to be less vocal on the SDMB and the ones you get are the loud, obnoxious kind.

Calculon.

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

@Calculon

The reason that I would identify the typical SDMB as a bunch of parrots is that they continue to offer the same silly statements over and over again as if repeating them enough makes them true. Take for instance the argument that is the centerpiece of this discussion, which appears to be:

1. There is no evidence for the existence of God
2. Therefore God does not exist.

No, the argument stops at number one. The 2nd statement is the starting assumption.

Formulated like this, the argument is simply invalid. The conclusion that God does not exist does not follow from the premise that there is no evidence for the existence of God.

There is no such “conclusion.” It is assumed at the outset. It doesn’t have to be proven. It is safe to assume that fairies don’t exist unless and until some evidence can be shown to the contrary.

There are any number of things that exist for which there is no evidence.

Cite?

So for instance, prior to the 15th century there was no evidence for the existence of the planet Neptune. Following this type of argument then atheists would have to conclude that Neptune did not exist until it was observed, at which point it sprung into existence. This is clearly absurd, because the logic of the argument is invalid. Even if you take the first premise as being true, all that you can reasonably conclude from this argument is:

This is an asinine analogy, and does not reflect any kind of logical argument made by atheists.

1. There is no evidence for the existence of God
   2*) Therefore God may or may not exist.

Incorrect. The null hypothesis is that gods don’t exist. That;s not something that has to be arrived at by evidence or argumentation, anymore than anyone needs to prove that spaghetti monsters don’t exist. Just because you can imagine a magical sky god doesn’t mean anyone has any reason to disprove it. If you don’t have evidence, then the logical assumption is that it doesn’t exist.
Since in this argument God may or may not exist, the statement that the claims of religion generally and Christianity specifically are wrong is simply irrational. There is no basis for that claim based on the evidence (or lack thereof) that we have. If you want to claim that a religion is wrong you need something more than just the general statement that “there is no evidence”

But what about the null hypothesis I hear you squawking?

Yeah, what about it? That kind of sucks for you, doesn’t it?

If you take as your A statement “God exists”, to logically use the null hypothesis you have to identify some statement or evidence that necessarily must be true if God does exist, and then demonstrate that this is not true.

Wrong. Completely wrong. It doesn’t work that way at all. The burden lies i=entirely with the hypothesis. The hypothesis doesn’t have to be falsified to confirm the null. You are totally wrong about how this works. You have to falsify the null. The null doesn’t have to falsify jack shit. It’s the default.

Without this the appeal to the null hypothesis is simply pseudo-scientific claptrap. To appeal to a null hypothesis you need some sort of reason or evidence which demonstrates that it is more likely than it’s negation.

No. You have an utterly erroneous misunderstanding of this. The null has no burden at all. The null wins until you falsify it.

It is not simply true by default, or until proven otherwise.

Yes it is, actually. It is assumed true until falsified. The null is innocent until proven guilty. The burden to prove the existence of your magical entities lies entirely with you. Nobody has to prove they don’t exist.

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

@Calculon

Secondly, I don’t think that it is at all clear that the fundamental premise that there is no evidence for the existence of God is in fact true. There are several problems with this statement:

1. It is on it’s face absurd, because it underlies a claim to omniscience. Unless you know all true statements then there is not possible that you can know that there is no evidence for something.

Fatuous. We need only to know that no evidence has been presented YET. This is a dog of an argument on your part. It’s an appeal to hypothetical evidece. If you ever present evidence, then there will be evidence. Until then, not.

3. The claim that there is no evidence for the existence of God also seems absurd to me because all throughout history and even today many people have claimed to have witnessed supernatural events which would count as at least “evidence” (even if it is not conclusive evidence) that God (in the general, broad sense) may actually exist.

No. It’s no evidence at all. Sorry.

While not all of these supernatural events may be genuine, to dismiss them all out of hand without any real argument, while insisting that there is no “evidence” is simply absurd and circular. If you wish to discount all of these claims then you need some sort of coherent argument as to why they all should not be counted as evidence. The two common tactics that you see are:

They are dismissible because they don’t meet any reasonable standard of scientific evidence and because they are impossible. That was easy.

a) The “I believe in one less miracle than you” approach where other dubious miracles are dragged up and it is insisted that if you don’t believe that these miracles happened, then your argument is special pleading. The argument though is fallacious because each claim needs to be evaluated on it’s own merits. So for instance if I am skeptical of Vespasian healing the sight of some guy, that does not mean that the resurrection of Jesus could not have happened. The evidence for the Vespasian miracle is rather dubious (it is not even clear that one of the recorders of the miracle, Tacitus, actually believe it took place) while the evidence for the resurrection is quite good. This line of argument is like saying that if I accept evolution, then because I accept science I should also accept the claims of phrenology or other such things. The two cases are independent and you can believe one without the other.

The “evidence” such as it is, for the Vespasian miracle is better than the evidence for any supernatural claim made in the Bible.

b) The “there is no evidence because miracles are impossible” argument. This is clearly a circular argument because it becomes “God does not exist because there is no evidence” and " there is no evidence because God does not exist".

No, the argument is that there is no evidence, full stop. Speculating that a powerful sorcorer who lives in the sky might be able to suspend the laws of physics is not something that needs to be disproved. It’s just question begging on your own part.

[sisu]

@Calculon

Unless there is some reason or argument given that the statement “There is no evidence for the existence of God” is more likely true than it’s negation, then I simply do not accept that there is in fact no evidence for the existence of God.

Calculon.

Just because both positions are possible does not mean that one is true.

You are sounding more and more agnostic, don’t fear the next step we have cookies.

[Calculon]

@sisu

Hi Cal,

I am not here to convince you that your faith is wrong, all I can do is show you that my lack of faith is not wrong either.

God is and has always been mankind’s way of dealing with the great unknown.

We cannot define what god is, so how can I believe it? If someone one day can define what god is, then maybe just maybe I might come around. And no i will not accept the bible as the literal word of god. It was written by men.

At this stage I am firmly of the view that a lack of faith is a humble position to take, I do not have the arrogance to say I understand what is unknown, religion does.

So your religion is IMO a cultural position and I respect that but I cannot accept it.

Hi Sisu,

What I object the most to is the type of atheist that makes a lot of noise about how irrational religious people are while using poor logic (or in some cases no logic, just bold assertion) themselves to try to uphold their positions. While you see a lot of examples of it, I don’t think that this represents all atheists, or that there is anything essentially wrong with someone who does not believe in God.

As for your position, I think that you do ultimately make a lot of truth claims, so we are alike in that sense. While it may be impossible to come up with an exhaustive, precise definition of God, I think that it is wrong to say that therefore we cannot know God. Christians believe that we are able to know God because God himself has revealed himself to us. He has done this in a variety of ways, but most importantly through Jesus. If we can understand who Jesus is and what he is like, then we can understand what God is like.

I am also interested in why you consider the bible a man-made book and not divine in any way. FWIW I don’t take the bible to be the literal word of God either, although I do take it to be literally the word of God. By that I mean that while the bible is not always intended to be read literally, God speaks through all of it. You don’t need to start with that belief though. If you just take the bible as a man-made, but historically accurate accurate book (which I think there is some evidence, especially for the NT that it is), that is enough to reveal the person of Jesus. I am interested in hearing about how you came to your view of the bible.

Calculon.

[Calculon]

@Diogenes_the_Cynic

No, the argument stops at number one. The 2nd statement is the starting assumption.

I don’t think I really need to go any further than this to show the irrationality of this response. The non-existence of God is taken as the starting assumption, and this is used to show that God does not exist? How is this a logical argument of any sort?

I think it is clear that you are arguing based not on evidence or logic, but purely on ideology, and when that ideology is questioned all you have to resort to is inane statements.

Calculon.

[Princhester]

@Calculon

The reason that I would identify the typical SDMB as a bunch of parrots is that they continue to offer the same silly statements over and over again as if repeating them enough makes them true. Take for instance the argument that is the centerpiece of this discussion, which appears to be:

1. There is no evidence for the existence of God
2. Therefore God does not exist.

You are wasting your time. Your entire longwinded post crashes and burns right here, because (certain outliers excepted) this is simply not the key argument. Actually what atheists say is:

1/ there is no (or at best insufficient) evidence for the existence of any deities;
2/ therefore there is no reason to believe in their existence.

Some take it a little further at line 2 and say something to the effect of…

2/ there is no more reason to believe in their existence than there is to believe in Russell’s teapot, and frankly for all practical purposes at that point the line between not seeing a reason to believe something exists and saying it doesn’t exist becomes so vanishingly thin that it isn’t really worth discussing, even if in theory the line exists.

The arguments for theism are so pitiful that the best theists can do is say “hey you can’t positively definitely with absolutely certainty prove the thing I base my world view around doesn’t exist” then pretend people disagree with them so they can argue back.

Personally it seems far more sensible to base my life around that which seems to be true than that which might conceivably not be false.

[Bryan_Ekers]

If Calculon has any evidence of God’s existence, I invite him to lay it on us.

If instead, God’s existence is assumed and must be disproved, I’d ask if feels the same way about Zeus and if not, why not.

As far as I can tell, the evidence for God is of the same quantity as the evidence for Zeus. Can anyone explain to me why I should accept both, reject one, or reject both? My inclination is to the last option.

[Calculon]

@Princhester

You are wasting your time. Your entire longwinded post crashes and burns right here, because (certain outliers excepted) this is simply not the key argument. Actually what atheists say is:

1/ there is no (or at best insufficient) evidence for the existence of any deities;
2/ therefore there is no reason to believe in their existence.

Some take it a little further at line 2 and say something to the effect of…

2/ there is no more reason to believe in their existence than there is to believe in Russell’s teapot, and frankly for all practical purposes at that point the line between not seeing a reason to believe something exists and saying it doesn’t exist becomes so vanishingly thin that it isn’t really worth discussing, even if in theory the line exists.

The arguments for theism are so pitiful that the best theists can do is say “hey you can’t positively definitely with absolutely certainty prove the thing I base my world view around doesn’t exist” then pretend people disagree with them so they can argue back.

Personally it seems far more sensible to base my life around that which seems to be true than that which might conceivably not be false.

If your argument is valid, then the similar argument:

1*) There is no evidence that shows that God does not exist
2*) Therefore there is no reason to doubt the existence of God

must also be valid. Therefore, you are still no closer to being able to justify your unbelief in the non-existence of God.

Also your argument about Russel’s teapot is wrongheaded because it is really an emotional argument, always phrased with fantastical things. The problem is that if you take it seriously it would also lead you doubt the existence of very real, mundane things as well. So for instance you have no evidence about the contents of the lunchbox sitting on my desk. Therefore by your logic it is empty as you read this. It is not however empty, and therefore your conclusion that is was is simply wrong. Just because there is no evidence for something does not mean that it does not exist.

Calculon.

[Mangetout]

I can’t believe you just pulled the ‘you can’t prove it isn’t!’ argument. Seriously.

[Voyager]

@Galileo

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.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?

Liberal admitted his logical arguments did not support Christianity in particular. His Christianity was due to a personal revelation.
And my experience is not only “around here” since “around here” did not exist in 1974.

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.

Since I’m sure you think you can do much better, I invite you to submit your argument. The burden of proof is on you, after all. Care to defend the arguments I’ve already listed, or do you agree that they are specious? If you’ve got nothing, you can stop wasting my and everyone else’s time.

[MrDibble]

One of my atheist arguments for the non-existence of god is that god is an incoherent concept with inherent internal contradictions. The very concept of god is flawed, never mind any arguments for its existence.

Come to me with a coherent concept of god and we could debate its existence or not.

[Lobohan]

@Calculon

If your argument is valid, then the similar argument:

1*) There is no evidence that shows that God does not exist
2*) Therefore there is no reason to doubt the existence of God

must also be valid. Therefore, you are still no closer to being able to justify your unbelief in the non-existence of God.

No.

You aren’t reasoning this correctly.

There is no evidence that there is an invisible and intangible vampire hovering near you, ready to turn solid and kill you when you piss him off, right? You’ll agree that there is no evidence for this, right?

Okay, now that we’ve established that there is no evidence for it, do you spend your entire life worried about what might piss off the vampire? What if you read that vampires hate garlic. Would you avoid garlic at all costs so that the vampire wouldn’t kill you?

Seriously think about that for a second.

You aren’t stupid, but you’re operating from the axiom that God is real. So you’re looking for arguments that defend Him. But in actuality, God is just like the intangible vampire. Living your life in fear of him isn’t rational.

Also your argument about Russel’s teapot is wrongheaded because it is really an emotional argument, always phrased with fantastical things. The problem is that if you take it seriously it would also lead you doubt the existence of very real, mundane things as well. So for instance you have no evidence about the contents of the lunchbox sitting on my desk. Therefore by your logic it is empty as you read this.

Again, you’re not reasoning correctly. If we don’t know what’s in your lunchbox, we don’t demand that it’s empty. We don’t know.

But if you claim that your lunchbox holds a real Star Trek Type 2 Phaser capable of destroying a high rise, we’d need evidence for believing that.

If you told us it contains a dirty thermos and a stiff sandwich, I’d probably accept that unless I knew you were prone to lying.

It is not however empty, and therefore your conclusion that is was is simply wrong. Just because there is no evidence for something does not mean that it does not exist.

Calculon.

If there is no evidence for something, and it actually defies the things we do know, believing in it isn’t rational.

Like I say, Zeus has exactly as much evidence as Yahweh. None. Why do you believe in Yahweh and deny Zeus? Or Aphrodite. Or Baal.

Just because you have no evidence for Baal doesn’t mean he doesn’t exist, right? Isn’t that what you just said?

[Voyager]

@Calculon

If your argument is valid, then the similar argument:

1*) There is no evidence that shows that God does not exist
2*) Therefore there is no reason to doubt the existence of God

must also be valid. Therefore, you are still no closer to being able to justify your unbelief in the non-existence of God.

You accuse us of using poor logic then you pull this howler? Amazing.
I trust you believe in the IPU, the FSM, and all sorts of little green men then.

Also your argument about Russel’s teapot is wrongheaded because it is really an emotional argument, always phrased with fantastical things.

I see - the teapot is fantastical, while the invisible, miracle working creator of the universe is not. Another beautiful example of special pleading. Not that I see anyone getting emotional about teapots.

The problem is that if you take it seriously it would also lead you doubt the existence of very real, mundane things as well. So for instance you have no evidence about the contents of the lunchbox sitting on my desk. Therefore by your logic it is empty as you read this. It is not however empty, and therefore your conclusion that is was is simply wrong. Just because there is no evidence for something does not mean that it does not exist.

Calculon.

We have lots of evidence of full lunchboxes. Now, it was perfectly rational to not accept the existence of Neptune until there was evidence of such. Unlike Neptune, people have been making claims about the existence of God for a long time, with precious little evidence. Maybe John Denver is talking to George Burns without telling anyone, but maybe someone has Uncle Martin in his back bedroom also. Fact is, gods or aliens are things that are likely to get publicized, so the chance of it being hidden is not great.
Believers love stories where gods or angels or aliens show up, and they usually do something to get noticed. In real life, no such thing has happened. You seem to be spending a lot of time justifying the lack of evidence and no time giving some.

[Princhester]

@Calculon

If your argument is valid, then the similar argument:

1*) There is no evidence that shows that God does not exist
2*) Therefore there is no reason to doubt the existence of God

must also be valid. Therefore, you are still no closer to being able to justify your unbelief in the non-existence of God.

I think you meant “no closer to being able to justify your unbelief in the existence of God”.

In any event, I am easily able to justify my unbelief. There is another element to the debate which goes without saying for most practical people: there is little point wasting time on the mental effort of belief in something until there is evidence for that thing. This causes me to adopt a default position of doubt. In the absence of evidence or adequate evidence that there are any deities, my default position of doubt trumps any lack of evidence that no deities exist.

Also your argument about Russel’s teapot is wrongheaded because it is really an emotional argument, always phrased with fantastical things. The problem is that if you take it seriously it would also lead you doubt the existence of very real, mundane things as well. So for instance you have no evidence about the contents of the lunchbox sitting on my desk. Therefore by your logic it is empty as you read this. It is not however empty, and therefore your conclusion that is was is simply wrong. Just because there is no evidence for something does not mean that it does not exist.

Firstly you have stuffed up your example. Applying my last post to your lunchbox would go as follows:

1/ I have no evidence about the contents of the lunchbox on your desk;
2/ Therefore I have no belief about the contents of your lunchbox.

A reasonable conclusion.

You can’t seem to help yourself from strawmanning lack of belief into a strong negative conclusion. There is a world of difference between me having no belief about the content of your lunchbox and concluding that it is empty.

Secondly, it is not merely a matter of what is conceivably correct as a matter of pure logic, it is a matter of what is probable or likely. You say the Russell’s teapot argument is emotional: it is not. It is probabilistic. Fantastical things are used in the debate because they are analagous to the subject matter: deities, which are monumentally fantastical. Indeed, the whole point of the teapot is that it is fantastical and most theists wouldn’t deny for a heartbeat that the teapot doesn’t exist, yet their deity is even more improbable than the teapot.

Your own example of your lunchbox works against you beautifully because it shows so clearly the difference between fantastical things like deities or Russell’s teapot, and real life:

• I have no belief about the contents of your lunchbox but it is probable that it contains your lunch at least till lunchtime and probably not thereafter. It is unlikely but not fantastical that this may affect me in some way, so I would be prepared to adopt as a working hypothesis, if I had to, the idea it contains your lunch till about the middle of the day, and the opposite thereafter, subject to evidence to the contrary.

• I have no belief there are any deities and it is so monumentally improbable that there are any that it is not worth wasting time believing there are or doing anything about them.

Operating theists - religious people - do not base their world view and their actions on a mere conclusion that their favourite deity cannot be proven not to exist. Only apologists on messageboards retreat to that position (because it is the only one they can attempt to defend).

[enigmatic]

One thing that interests me about the basic premise of this thread.

Why would theists not want to debate with atheists? Isn’t there often an actual requirement to try and convert unbelievers who are open to discussion about the existence of God? surely this involves debate? or do you think that atheists should be obliged to listen to theists but shouldn’t get an opportunity to present their own arguments in return?

I am entirely open to the possibility that an entity that roughly corresponds to some peoples notion of god exists. But I find the suggestion that such an entity would exactly correspond to that envisaged by any major religion to be somewhat farcical if only because of the tremendous historical corruption, poilitical meddling and resulting nonsensical philosophical stances that those religions are saddled with.

In general I have found that the religious people I come across have less actual knowledge of theology, and have spent less time examining their own beliefs than those people who actually self identify as atheists or agnostics.

I do find that many atheists are needlessly aggressive or hostile regarding religion, but I also recognise that many of them have grown up in an environment which is even more hostile and aggressive to their own beliefs. In particular I find the suggestion that the US is a more hostile place for believers than it is for none believers a patently ridiculous one, but I can only go on my own perceptions and experience of online behaviour here, having never actually lived in the US.

[Der_Trihs]

@enigmatic

or do you think that atheists should be obliged to listen to theists but shouldn’t get an opportunity to present their own arguments in return?

This is what the believers want.