Why make stupid unsustainable arguments?

[Edwardo Piet]

But there's not a complete lack of evidence for the good of Christianity.

And that's where you start being irrelevant.

Doesn't make it true. Christianity is still false, so why are atheists stupid for pointing that out?

Even with fallacious refutations from some atheists, the onus is still on the Christian to begin with when they claim that God exists.

[Mr.wizard]

I'm not the one making the claim. Do you understand the burden of proof? When Christians claim that God exists, the burden of proof is on them. Proving a negative isn't necessary, Christianity isn't even worthy of refutation, and the same goes for other forms of theism.

I do understand the burden of proof, Evie. And you're right...Christians do have the burden of proof when they claim that God exists. But that's only one side of the coin.

Atheists have the burden of proof when they claim that God does not exist. Atheism is NOT merely a lack of a belief in God; it is a belief (ranging in strength from uncertainty to certainty) that there is no god. If that is your position, then you should be able to give me good reasons for it (just as a believer ought to be able to give me reasons for faith). It is a logical leap to go from "I'm not convinced by the evidence" to "Christianity/Judaism/Islam/whatever is not true." It simply means you don't have enough compelling evidence to know with certainty.

For example, is the total number of grains of sand on the beach an even or odd number? If you don't believe the number is even, shouldn't you have proof that the number is odd? If you're going to state something more than a guess, an opinion or a preference, you ought to start counting. Or admit that you don't know with certainty and remain agnostic about the number.

Further, the common cry that "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" is an example of confirmation bias. Since the skeptic is not inclined to believe the claims of believers, the bar is raised. On the other hand, when a Mythicist author makes claims that are not supported by real scholarship, the bar is lowered and the claims (though unsupported) are likely to be accepted by the average skeptical reader because the author is confirming the bias of the reader.  So, the end result of this confirmation bias is that something which may be quite strong evidentially is dismissed as "not extraordinary" because the threshold for what IS considered extraordinary is raised impossibly high in the mind of the non-believer. 

This is true in reverse, of course, for religious authors and their readers, pastors and their flocks. Believers can tend to be overly gullible in this regard. As Aractus pointed out, everyone is biased, so it's important for authors and readers to be aware of this bias and consider the source when evaluating claims of one sort or another.

---

Fuck off, Danny.  YOU don't get to decide which scholars are real and which are not.   You keep your tiny little mind confined in a tiny little box and anything which challenges your predetermined notions is something which simply CAN NEVER BE REAL.

You're pathetic.

Aren't there universities and accreditation boards for this sort of thing?

Seems to me we ought to be able to figure out who has legitimate credentials and who is a self-published crackpot with a blog...

Atheism is a lack of belief, its a response to a claim, it does not make a claim or bear a burden of proof. Also "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" is not confirmation bias, certain claims require different degrees of evidence. One example: If someone claims to have a dog, I am inclined to believe them if they show me the leash. On the other hand if they claim to have pet dragon, simply showing me a leash will not be sufficient.

[Edwardo Piet]

Sorry Athrock but are you suggesting that true atheism=strong atheism?

[Clueless Morgan]

it's been well observed and documented in other places as a significant determinant of health.

But perhaps the biggest problem is that the weight of literature shows there is an effect

Provide the evidence then. You said in your OP:

There are three types of arguments I see getting used against Christians.

1. Informed arguments - these are the ones an atheist or sceptic can back-up with evidence.
2. Uninformed arguments - these are the ones that atheists or sceptics think are good arguments, but are not backed up with evidence.
3. Valid points that are more-or-less meaningless. This is where an atheist or sceptic comes up with a valid point, but doesn't realise that the point doesn't threaten most Christian's beliefs or understanding about the Bible and their God.

It is the uninformed arguments that I hate the most.

So far, in this thread, you are making an uniformed argument by not providing evidence for the assertions you are making - you are merely asserting that there's all this good evidence out there. Okay, provide it!

But there's not a complete lack of evidence for the good of Christianity.

Which falls under your category (3) of arguments: "Valid points that are more-or-less meaningless." The "good" of Christianity doesn't necessitate that the religion is true or it god existent. This is why a lot of atheists claim that the evidence that theists often claim is really bad evidence, or ultimately not evidence in support of their claim at all.

Sorry Athrock but are you suggesting that true atheism=strong atheism?

It's the no-true-atheist fallacy: you're not an atheist unless you positively assert that no gods exist.

[athrock]

Point is though an atheist can be completely illogical and give bad arguments. They can lose a debate to a Christian. But after all that is over: It still remains that the Christian has no evidence for their God.

It's a common but technically inaccurate assertion that there is NO evidence for God. There is evidence. 

Just not the kind of empirical* evidence that some people seem to think is required. 

And therefore the cry, "NO EVIDENCE!" gets repeated over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over....



*based on, concerned with, or verifiable by observation or experience rather than theory or pure logic. (see? theory and pure logic are other forms of evidence)

[Cato]

That was annoying as fuck.

[Clueless Morgan]

It's a common but technically inaccurate assertion that there is NO evidence for God. There is evidence.

What is it?

[Joods]

Point is though an atheist can be completely illogical and give bad arguments. They can lose a debate to a Christian. But after all that is over: It still remains that the Christian has no evidence for their God.

It's a common but technically inaccurate assertion that there is NO evidence for God. There is evidence. 

Just not the kind of empirical* evidence that some people seem to think is required. 

---

And therefore the cry, "NO EVIDENCE!" gets repeated over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over....

---

*based on, concerned with, or verifiable by observation or experience rather than theory or pure logic. (see? theory and pure logic are other forms of evidence)

Are you really this stupid? We have been asking and asking and asking and asking and asking and asking and asking and asking.... for this fucking evidence. So where the hell is it if you claim it's there so much?

[rexbeccarox]

Point is though an atheist can be completely illogical and give bad arguments. They can lose a debate to a Christian. But after all that is over: It still remains that the Christian has no evidence for their God.

It's a common but technically inaccurate assertion that there is NO evidence for God. There is evidence. 

Just not the kind of empirical* evidence that some people seem to think is required. 

And therefore the cry, "NO EVIDENCE!" gets repeated over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over....



*based on, concerned with, or verifiable by observation or experience rather than theory or pure logic. (see? theory and pure logic are other forms of evidence)

What does this have to do with your assertion that atheists are those who state that there is no god? That's simply not true.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/atheism

Definition of ATHEISM

1
archaic : ungodliness, wickedness
2
a : a disbelief in the existence of deity
b : the doctrine that there is no deity

[GrandizerII]

Point is though an atheist can be completely illogical and give bad arguments. They can lose a debate to a Christian. But after all that is over: It still remains that the Christian has no evidence for their God.

It's a common but technically inaccurate assertion that there is NO evidence for God. There is evidence. 

Just not the kind of empirical* evidence that some people seem to think is required. 

And therefore the cry, "NO EVIDENCE!" gets repeated over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over....



*based on, concerned with, or verifiable by observation or experience rather than theory or pure logic. (see? theory and pure logic are other forms of evidence)

Poor evidence if you ask me. One could pretty much substitute God with the cosmos in many of those arguments, and that would make the arguments more parsimonious. Also, such arguments tend to not be based on pure logic, but on biased interpretations of current scientific observations (or even making shit up and calling it scientific).