One Political Plaza - Home of politics
Home Active Topics Newest Pictures Search Login Register
Main
Top 10 Most Common Atheist Arguments, and Why They Fail (Part B)
Page 1 of 4 next> last>>
Nov 7, 2015 07:10:30   #
Doc110 Loc: York PA
 
11/06/2015 Top 10 Most Common Atheist Arguments, and Why They Fail
https://ehyde.wordpress.com/2014/03/21/top-10-most-common-atheist-arguments-and-why-they-fail/

6. Christian’s only believe in Christianity because they were born in a Christian culture. If they’d been born in India they would have been Hindu instead.

This argument is appealing because it pretends to wholly dismiss people’s reasoning capabilities based on their environmental influences in childhood.

The idea is that people in general are so intellectually near-sighted that they can’t see past their own upbringing, which, it would follow, would be an equally condemning commentary on atheism (if one was consistent with the charge), but the idea is fairly easy to counter.

Take the history of the Jewish people for example. Let us say that to ‘be’ Jewish, in the religious sense, is much more than a matter of cultural adherence. To be a Jewish believer is to have Judaism permeate one’s thinking and believing and interaction with the world.

But is this the state of affairs with the majority of the Jewish people, whether in America, Europe, Israel, or wherever?

One would have to be seriously out of touch to believe so. The same phenomenon is found within so-called Christian communities, that is: many sport a Christian title, but are wholly derelict in personal faith.

“Believing” in Christianity is a far more serious endeavor then merely wearing a church name tag.

Indeed, being born in a Jewish or Christian centric home today is more often a precursor that the child will grow up to abandon the faith of his or her family, or at least be associated with the faith by affiliation only.

7. The gospel doesn’t make sense: God was mad at mankind because of sin so he decided to torture and kill his own Son so that he could appease his own pathological anger. God is the weirdo, not me.

This is actually a really good argument against certain Protestant sects (I’ve used it myself on numerous occasions), but it has no traction with the Orthodox Christian faith.

The Orthodox have no concept of a God who needed appeasement in order to love His creation.

The Father sacrificed His own Son in order to destroy death with His life; not to assuage His wrath, but to heal; not to protect mankind from His fury, but to unite mankind to His love.

If the reader is interested to hear more on this topic follow this link for a fuller discussion.

Was Jesus Sent to Heal Man or to Heal God?
https://ehyde.wordpress.com/2012/02/16/was-jesus-sent-to-heal-man-or-to-heal-god/

8. History is full of mother-child messiah cults, trinity godheads, and the like. Thus the Christian story is a myth like the rest.

This argument seems insurmountable on the surface, but is really a slow-pitch across the plate. There is no arguing the fact that history is full of similar stories found in the Bible, and I won’t take the time to recount them here.

But this fact should not be surprising in the least, indeed if history had no similar stories it would be reason for concern. Anything beautiful always has replicas.

A counterfeit coin does not prove the non-existence of the authentic coin, it proves the exact opposite.

A thousand U2 cover bands is not evidence that U2 is a myth.

Ah, but that doesn’t address the fact that some of these stories were told before the Biblical accounts. True. But imagine if the only story of a messianic virgin birth, death, and resurrection were contained in the New Testament.

That, to me, would be odd. It would be odd because if all people everywhere had God as their Creator, yet the central event of human history—the game changing event of all the ages—the incarnation, death, and resurrection of Christ had never occurred to them, in at least some hazy form, they would have been completely cut off from the prime mysteries of human existence.

It seems only natural that if the advent of Christ was real it would permeate through the consciousness (or, if you prefer, ‘unconsciousness’) of mankind on some level regardless of their place in history.

One should expect to find mankind replicating these stories, found in their own visions and dreams, again and again throughout history. And indeed, that is what we find.

9. The God of the Bible is evil. A God who allows so much suffering and death can be nothing but evil.

This criticism is voice in many different ways. For me, this is one of the most legitimate arguments against the existence of a good God. The fact that there is suffering and death is the strongest argument against the belief in an all-powerful, all-knowing, all-loving God.

If suffering and death exist it seems to suggest one of two things: (1) either God is love, but He is not all-powerful and cannot stop suffering and death, or (2) God is all-powerful, but He does not care for us.

I devoted a separate article addressing this problem, but let me deal here with the problem inherent in the criticism itself.
God and Tragedy
https://ehyde.wordpress.com/2013/11/23/god-and-tragedy/

The argument takes as its presupposition that good and evil are real; that there is an ultimate standard of good and evil that supersedes mere fanciful ‘ideas’ about what is good and evil at a given time in our ethical evolution, as it were.

If there is not a real existence—an ontological reality—of good and evil, then the charge that God is evil because of this or that is really to say nothing more than, “I personally don’t like what I see in the world and therefore a good God cannot exist.”

I like what C.S. Lewis said on a similar matter: “There is no sense in talking of ‘becoming better’ if better means simply ‘what we are becoming’—it is like congratulating yourself on reaching your destination and defining destination as ‘the place you have reached.’”

What is tricky for the atheist in these sorts of debates is to steer clear of words loaded with religious overtones. It’s weird for someone who does not believe in ultimate good and evil to condemn God as evil because He did not achieve their personal vision of good.

So, the initial criticism is sound, but it is subversive to the atheist’s staging ground. If one is going to accept good and evil as realities, he is not in a position to fully reject God.

Instead, he is more in a position to wrestle with the idea that God is good. This struggle is applauded in the Orthodox Church. After all, the very word God used for his people in the Old Testament—“Israel”—means to struggle with God.

10. Evolution has answered the question of where we came from. There is no need for ignorant ancient myths anymore.

This might be the most popular attempted smack-downs of religion in general today. It is found in many variations but the concept is fairly consistent and goes something like this: Science has brought us to a point where we no longer need mythology to understand the world, and any questions which remain will eventually be answered through future scientific breakthroughs.

The main battle-ground where this criticism is seen today is in evolution vs. creationism debates.

Let me say upfront that there is perhaps no other subject that bores me more than evolution vs. creationism debates. I would rather watch paint dry.

And when I’m not falling asleep through such debates I’m frustrated because usually both sides of the debate use large amounts of dishonesty in order to gain points rather than to gain the truth.

The evolutionist has no commentary whatsoever on the existence of God, and the creationist usually suffers from profound confusion in their understanding of the first few chapters of Genesis.

So, without entering into the most pathetic debate of the ages, bereft of all intellectual profundity, I’ll only comment on the underlining idea that science has put Christianity out of the answer business.

Science is fantastic if you want to know what gauge wire is compatible with a 20 amp electric charge, how agriculture works, what causes disease and how to cure it, and a million other things.

But where the physical sciences are completely lacking is in those issues most important to human beings—the truly existential issues: what does it mean to be human, why are we here, what is valuable, what does it mean to love, to hate, what am I to do with guilt, grief, sorrow, what does it mean to succeed, is there any meaning and what does ‘meaning’ mean, and, of course, is there a God?

etc, ad infinitum.

As far as where we come from, evolution has barely scratched the purely scientific surface of the matter.

Even if the whole project of evolution as an account of our history was without serious objection, it would still not answer the problem of the origin of life, since the option of natural selection as an explanation is not available when considering how dead or inorganic matter becomes organic.

Even more complicated is the matter of where matter came from.

The ‘Big Bang’ is not an answer to origins but rather a description of the event by which everything came into being; i.e., it’s the description of a smoking gun, not the shooter.

Reply
Nov 7, 2015 07:21:23   #
Loki Loc: Georgia
 
Doc110 wrote:
11/06/2015 Top 10 Most Common Atheist Arguments, and Why They Fail
https://ehyde.wordpress.com/2014/03/21/top-10-most-common-atheist-arguments-and-why-they-fail/

6. Christian’s only believe in Christianity because they were born in a Christian culture. If they’d been born in India they would have been Hindu instead.

This argument is appealing because it pretends to wholly dismiss people’s reasoning capabilities based on their environmental influences in childhood.

The idea is that people in general are so intellectually near-sighted that they can’t see past their own upbringing, which, it would follow, would be an equally condemning commentary on atheism (if one was consistent with the charge), but the idea is fairly easy to counter.

Take the history of the Jewish people for example. Let us say that to ‘be’ Jewish, in the religious sense, is much more than a matter of cultural adherence. To be a Jewish believer is to have Judaism permeate one’s thinking and believing and interaction with the world.

But is this the state of affairs with the majority of the Jewish people, whether in America, Europe, Israel, or wherever?

One would have to be seriously out of touch to believe so. The same phenomenon is found within so-called Christian communities, that is: many sport a Christian title, but are wholly derelict in personal faith.

“Believing” in Christianity is a far more serious endeavor then merely wearing a church name tag.

Indeed, being born in a Jewish or Christian centric home today is more often a precursor that the child will grow up to abandon the faith of his or her family, or at least be associated with the faith by affiliation only.

7. The gospel doesn’t make sense: God was mad at mankind because of sin so he decided to torture and kill his own Son so that he could appease his own pathological anger. God is the weirdo, not me.

This is actually a really good argument against certain Protestant sects (I’ve used it myself on numerous occasions), but it has no traction with the Orthodox Christian faith.

The Orthodox have no concept of a God who needed appeasement in order to love His creation.

The Father sacrificed His own Son in order to destroy death with His life; not to assuage His wrath, but to heal; not to protect mankind from His fury, but to unite mankind to His love.

If the reader is interested to hear more on this topic follow this link for a fuller discussion.

Was Jesus Sent to Heal Man or to Heal God?
https://ehyde.wordpress.com/2012/02/16/was-jesus-sent-to-heal-man-or-to-heal-god/

8. History is full of mother-child messiah cults, trinity godheads, and the like. Thus the Christian story is a myth like the rest.

This argument seems insurmountable on the surface, but is really a slow-pitch across the plate. There is no arguing the fact that history is full of similar stories found in the Bible, and I won’t take the time to recount them here.

But this fact should not be surprising in the least, indeed if history had no similar stories it would be reason for concern. Anything beautiful always has replicas.

A counterfeit coin does not prove the non-existence of the authentic coin, it proves the exact opposite.

A thousand U2 cover bands is not evidence that U2 is a myth.

Ah, but that doesn’t address the fact that some of these stories were told before the Biblical accounts. True. But imagine if the only story of a messianic virgin birth, death, and resurrection were contained in the New Testament.

That, to me, would be odd. It would be odd because if all people everywhere had God as their Creator, yet the central event of human history—the game changing event of all the ages—the incarnation, death, and resurrection of Christ had never occurred to them, in at least some hazy form, they would have been completely cut off from the prime mysteries of human existence.

It seems only natural that if the advent of Christ was real it would permeate through the consciousness (or, if you prefer, ‘unconsciousness’) of mankind on some level regardless of their place in history.

One should expect to find mankind replicating these stories, found in their own visions and dreams, again and again throughout history. And indeed, that is what we find.

9. The God of the Bible is evil. A God who allows so much suffering and death can be nothing but evil.

This criticism is voice in many different ways. For me, this is one of the most legitimate arguments against the existence of a good God. The fact that there is suffering and death is the strongest argument against the belief in an all-powerful, all-knowing, all-loving God.

If suffering and death exist it seems to suggest one of two things: (1) either God is love, but He is not all-powerful and cannot stop suffering and death, or (2) God is all-powerful, but He does not care for us.

I devoted a separate article addressing this problem, but let me deal here with the problem inherent in the criticism itself.
God and Tragedy
https://ehyde.wordpress.com/2013/11/23/god-and-tragedy/

The argument takes as its presupposition that good and evil are real; that there is an ultimate standard of good and evil that supersedes mere fanciful ‘ideas’ about what is good and evil at a given time in our ethical evolution, as it were.

If there is not a real existence—an ontological reality—of good and evil, then the charge that God is evil because of this or that is really to say nothing more than, “I personally don’t like what I see in the world and therefore a good God cannot exist.”

I like what C.S. Lewis said on a similar matter: “There is no sense in talking of ‘becoming better’ if better means simply ‘what we are becoming’—it is like congratulating yourself on reaching your destination and defining destination as ‘the place you have reached.’”

What is tricky for the atheist in these sorts of debates is to steer clear of words loaded with religious overtones. It’s weird for someone who does not believe in ultimate good and evil to condemn God as evil because He did not achieve their personal vision of good.

So, the initial criticism is sound, but it is subversive to the atheist’s staging ground. If one is going to accept good and evil as realities, he is not in a position to fully reject God.

Instead, he is more in a position to wrestle with the idea that God is good. This struggle is applauded in the Orthodox Church. After all, the very word God used for his people in the Old Testament—“Israel”—means to struggle with God.

10. Evolution has answered the question of where we came from. There is no need for ignorant ancient myths anymore.

This might be the most popular attempted smack-downs of religion in general today. It is found in many variations but the concept is fairly consistent and goes something like this: Science has brought us to a point where we no longer need mythology to understand the world, and any questions which remain will eventually be answered through future scientific breakthroughs.

The main battle-ground where this criticism is seen today is in evolution vs. creationism debates.

Let me say upfront that there is perhaps no other subject that bores me more than evolution vs. creationism debates. I would rather watch paint dry.

And when I’m not falling asleep through such debates I’m frustrated because usually both sides of the debate use large amounts of dishonesty in order to gain points rather than to gain the truth.

The evolutionist has no commentary whatsoever on the existence of God, and the creationist usually suffers from profound confusion in their understanding of the first few chapters of Genesis.

So, without entering into the most pathetic debate of the ages, bereft of all intellectual profundity, I’ll only comment on the underlining idea that science has put Christianity out of the answer business.

Science is fantastic if you want to know what gauge wire is compatible with a 20 amp electric charge, how agriculture works, what causes disease and how to cure it, and a million other things.

But where the physical sciences are completely lacking is in those issues most important to human beings—the truly existential issues: what does it mean to be human, why are we here, what is valuable, what does it mean to love, to hate, what am I to do with guilt, grief, sorrow, what does it mean to succeed, is there any meaning and what does ‘meaning’ mean, and, of course, is there a God?

etc, ad infinitum.

As far as where we come from, evolution has barely scratched the purely scientific surface of the matter.

Even if the whole project of evolution as an account of our history was without serious objection, it would still not answer the problem of the origin of life, since the option of natural selection as an explanation is not available when considering how dead or inorganic matter becomes organic.

Even more complicated is the matter of where matter came from.

The ‘Big Bang’ is not an answer to origins but rather a description of the event by which everything came into being; i.e., it’s the description of a smoking gun, not the shooter.
11/06/2015 Top 10 Most Common Atheist Arguments, a... (show quote)


Interesting argument. You realize you have probably changed no one's mind about anything.

Reply
Nov 7, 2015 07:23:55   #
Doc110 Loc: York PA
 
Loki wrote:
Interesting argument. You realize you have probably changed no one's mind about anything.


True, but the facts are presented, none the less.

Freedom of choice, Yes or NO. ?

Reply
 
 
Nov 7, 2015 07:53:53   #
Loki Loc: Georgia
 
Doc110 wrote:
True, but the facts are presented, none the less.

Freedom of choice, Yes or NO. ?


Absolutely yes. However, your premise barely touches the fact that there are options other than Christianity or Atheism, that there are other religions and belief systems that predate Christianity, and the "orthodox Christianity" you mention has deviated considerably from that which was practiced by Christ, the Disciples, and the early Christian Church. A First Century Christian viewing a modern church service would consider it to be some sort of pagan ritual, and he or she would not be that far wrong.
While I am certainly no Atheist, I do not subscribe to any organized religion, particularly the monotheistic western ones that have borrowed so heavily from polytheistic pagan beliefs, and from each other. I believe there is more than one path to God, for whatever reason. What works for one person or group may not be appropriate for another.

Reply
Nov 7, 2015 08:10:15   #
Doc110 Loc: York PA
 
Loki wrote:


Absolutely yes.

However, your premise barely touches the fact that there are options other than Christianity or Atheism, that there are other religions and belief systems that predate Christianity, and the "orthodox Christianity" you mention has deviated considerably from that which was practiced by Christ, the Disciples, and the early Christian Church.

A First Century Christian viewing a modern church service would consider it to be some sort of pagan ritual, and he or she would not be that far wrong.

While I am certainly no Atheist, I do not subscribe to any organized religion, particularly the monotheistic western ones that have borrowed so heavily from polytheistic pagan beliefs, and from each other.

I believe there is more than one path to God, for whatever reason.

What works for one person or group may not be appropriate for another.
br br Absolutely yes. br br However, your prem... (show quote)


Loki,
I found that this article from a Orthodox Christian Church apologist, would give an interesting perspective. Vs. Protestant, Catholic or Organized Religion viewpoint to the secular and atheists on the OPP Forum.

The ten arguments do give some credence and teeth to counter the secular, and atheistic opinions that are raised in many of the anti God, religious sentiments on the OPP articles posted.

Reply
Nov 7, 2015 12:17:41   #
JW
 
I don't know who is the more delusional, the atheist or the religionist.

Both start their arguments from fantasy and pretend it doesn't hurt their 'logic'. Neither has a grasp of the concept of evidence and both refuse to be bound by it.

It is clear that the vast majority of people need a belief system to support their realities and structure the one they choose according to a personal bias that has no basis in anything but self interest.

Reply
Nov 7, 2015 12:22:25   #
Doc110 Loc: York PA
 
JW wrote:


I don't know who is the more delusional, the atheist or the religionist.

Both start their arguments from fantasy and pretend it doesn't hurt their 'logic'. Neither has a grasp of the concept of evidence and both refuse to be bound by it.

It is clear that the vast majority of people need a belief system to support their realities and structure the one they choose according to a personal bias that has no basis in anything but self interest.


Who on the OPP Forum is doing the attacking, and its not the religious Christian Denominations. So I ask you why can't their be a counter to their attack style.

I Digress and the continued questions that are made. Its a public forum . . .

Reply
 
 
Nov 7, 2015 12:41:22   #
JW
 
Doc110 wrote:
Who on the OPP Forum is doing the attacking, and its not the religious Christian Denominations. So I ask you why can't their be a counter to their attack style.

I Digress and the continued questions that are made. Its a public forum . . .


It's both. Neither of you is able to root an argument in anything but emotional pablum. You attack each other with nonsense and celebrate self declared victory in your opening volley. It's like watching two children fighting over possession of a toy that neither one owns.

Reply
Nov 7, 2015 12:47:34   #
Doc110 Loc: York PA
 
I beg to differ with your opinion, respectfully.

Reply
Nov 7, 2015 16:41:47   #
Loki Loc: Georgia
 
JW wrote:
It's both. Neither of you is able to root an argument in anything but emotional pablum. You attack each other with nonsense and celebrate self declared victory in your opening volley. It's like watching two children fighting over possession of a toy that neither one owns.


Neither of us were attacking the other. We offered differing opinions. The only attacking being done is by you, in the promotion of your own emotional pablum.

Reply
Nov 7, 2015 21:30:38   #
JW
 
Loki wrote:
Neither of us were attacking the other. We offered differing opinions. The only attacking being done is by you, in the promotion of your own emotional pablum.


Based on your response, I take it your comprehension abilities are limited. If you follow the context of my postings, you will gather that I am not referring to either of you two. I am speaking of the atheists and the religionists Doc referred to in his comments.

Reply
 
 
Nov 7, 2015 21:46:22   #
JW
 
Doc110 wrote:
I beg to differ with your opinion, respectfully.


You are entitled to any opinion you choose but your objection doesn't invalidate my observations.

Those who support the religious view have no basis for arguing science because they always fall back on their religious magical starting point, God can do all things because He isn't constrained by science.

Atheist apologetics demonstrates the same flaw, gods can't exist because science can't support their existence.

Both sides are intellectually locked out of the other's argument and neither one can understand that simple fact.

Reply
Nov 7, 2015 22:27:05   #
Doc110 Loc: York PA
 
JW wrote:
You are entitled to any opinion you choose but your objection doesn't invalidate my observations.

Those who support the religious view have no basis for arguing science because they always fall back on their religious magical starting point, God can do all things because He isn't constrained by science.

Atheist apologetics demonstrates the same flaw, gods can't exist because science can't support their existence.

Both sides are intellectually locked out of the other's argument and neither one can understand that simple fact.
You are entitled to any opinion you choose but you... (show quote)

Reply
Nov 7, 2015 22:28:58   #
Doc110 Loc: York PA
 
Their is that tangible thought, called faith.

Which you and others can confirm and or deny.

Reply
Nov 8, 2015 00:41:07   #
JW
 
Doc110 wrote:
Their is that tangible thought, called faith.

Which you and others can confirm and or deny.


There is no tangible thought. Thought is ethereal.

Like I said, the fallback is magic. Because you believe it is so, so it must be.

I have no argument with your choice to believe nor with the atheist's choice to disbelieve. Both are entitled to their own worldview. I merely point out that there is no argument that can come from either side the can meet the most fundamental criterion of the other... and neither side gets it.

Reply
Page 1 of 4 next> last>>
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
Main
OnePoliticalPlaza.com - Forum
Copyright 2012-2024 IDF International Technologies, Inc.