Why make stupid unsustainable arguments?

[athrock]

I don't need to refute Christianity or argue against Christianity. It is self-defeating.

To say that something is self-defeating is a positive statement requiring an argument and evidence.

You may be right, of course, but merely asserting it doesn't advance the ball.

---

While you can debate them, all of these arguments tend to be unpersuasive to the non-believer, while more persuasive to those who already believe.  Ignoring Antony Flew, few people are converted on the strength of these arguments alone.  The common thread being that those who find these arguments persuasive already have a propensity for belief.  Belief is the common ingredient, not the argument.

I wanted to come back to this because this has to do with the OP. I firmly believe you are correct, the arguments listed cannot persuade a belief in God. My intent was to point out that belief in God is not irrational and can therefore be discussed in a reasonable manner and with respect. 

An interesting dynamic can be observed on both sides. 

There are Christians that think they can come in and with a little typing change your minds. I think all of them are sincere, These range from people who are sincere but unprepared (either factually or cognitively) to those that want to learn what the objections are and research and come back. The first group is frustrating to everyone else (including the second group). 

The very same thing happens with atheists. They think if they type "there is no evidence for gawd or jebus" that they win. They are often unprepared (either factually or cognitively). Some feel the need for shock, contempt, and/or derision.  Others know the arguments and can engage in a productive and civil dialog. 

A comment about the atheist that feels the need for shock, contempt, and/or derision toward theists or Christians in general: it is juvenile and shows a lack of character. Whether God exists or not and whether Christianity is true has been debated for millennium. There is nothing new that you can bring up that has not been discussed and written about to a staggering degree by people way smarter than those here (on both sides). There has been no new discovery that makes our generation more enlightened than the previous. You do not have a monopoly on truth. Intelligent people can agree to disagree with civility.

I agree, and you've echoed the main point of the OP very nicely, I think. Stupid arguments on both sides are pointless. And it is just as POINTLESS for a skeptic to parrot "There is no evidence for God" (Since there is circumstantial evidence, at least.) than it is for the believer to chant, "God said it. I believe it. And that settles it." (No, it really doesn't settle anything.)

However, after reading through a lot of older threads, it appears that this forum is (for the majority of its members) less about serious apologetics and more about having a place to vent and feel safe after being hurt by negative experiences in the past. You can view some old posts/polls that show how many people here are former Christians, for example. There are some exceptions, and you can usually tell when someone is giving you serious thought and not just mockery of the "buy-bull", etc.

So, I'm hoping for some GOOD discussion, and I plan on harpooning stupid thinking whenever I encounter it. Naturally, I expect the same in return.

[Cato]

This merely betrays why you are not a Christian; it does not explain why you are, and should rightly be, an atheist.

I am an atheist because there is absolutely no evidence for god; none, zip, zero, nil, nada.

I am not a Christian because it's bullshit, demonstrably so: no Adam and Eve, no original fall, no need for a redeemer, no need for Jesus Christ. It's that simple.

Calling the cause of the Big Bang 'god' (deist notion of god) because one is uncomfortable suspending judgement until more is known is one thing and not necessarily irrational; imbuing the same with any number of fantasized characteristics because ancient stories said so and accepting this as fact without justification is irrational. People can believe anything they wish; however, this says nothing of the justification or validity of the beliefs. All these supposed arguments for god are nothing more than a charade attempting to give credibility to unjustified belief and are strangely only convincing to those who already believe for other reasons.

[Cato]

And it is just as POINTLESS for a skeptic to parrot "There is no evidence for God" (Since there is circumstantial evidence, at least.) than it is for the believer to chant, "God said it. I believe it. And that settles it." (No, it really doesn't settle anything.)

This is incredibly vapid. This is atheistforums.org. You must know this. So we have an entire site setup around a position taken regarding a very specific question: does god exist. Now you come along to inform us that making the observation that there is no evidence for god is 'POINTLESS'. Not only is it not pointless, it is THE fucking point.

[athrock]

This merely betrays why you are not a Christian; it does not explain why you are, and should rightly be, an atheist.

I am an atheist because there is absolutely no evidence for god; none, zip, zero, nil, nada.

I realize it was not your intention to open a huge can of worms, but when you make positive statements like this, you are obligated to provide a supporting argument or be relegated to the category of background chatter.

In order to foster some intelligent discussion, I started a thread on the Moral Argument. Just one of the arguments that believers use to explain their beliefs. It is my hope that by going through some of these arguments, slowly, carefully and comprehensively, we can arrive at some conclusions about the merits of each.

If you're interested, of course.

I am not a Christian because it's bullshit, demonstrably so: no Adam and Eve, no original fall, no need for a redeemer, no need for Jesus Christ. It's that simple.

Pretty simplistic...and unchallenged for now because this is not the time or place.

Calling the cause of the Big Bang 'god' (deist notion of god) because one is uncomfortable suspending judgement until more is known is one thing and not necessarily irrational; imbuing the same with any number of fantasized characteristics because ancient stories said so and accepting this as fact without justification is irrational. People can believe anything they wish; however, this says nothing of the justification or validity of the beliefs. All these supposed arguments for god are nothing more than a charade attempting to give credibility to unjustified belief and are strangely only convincing to those who already believe for other reasons.

Who calls the Big Bang "god"? Not theists or atheists from what I've read. That would be akin to calling the the telephone the inventor instead of the invention. Precision is important here. Believers claim that God caused the Big Bang...it did not cause itself.

[Edwardo Piet]

I don't need to refute Christianity or argue against Christianity. It is self-defeating.

To say that something is self-defeating is a positive statement requiring an argument and evidence.

You may be right, of course, but merely asserting it doesn't advance the ball.

Very true, but what I said is within the context of my other posts on this thread.

As I have reiterated over and over: Christianity is completely lacking any evidence regardless of how bad any atheists arguments against it are. At the end of the day Christians can defeat atheists in a debate as much as they like, and atheists can fail to refute the Christian arguments over and over: At the end of the day the onus is still on Christianity to provide evidence, and Christians continue to fail to do so.

That's all I mean by "Christianity is self-defeating." As I have explained over and over on this thread: There's nothing worth refuting because it completely lacks any evidence.,

I'm not saying it's self-defeating as in disproven, I'm saying it's self-defeating as in "I don't have to even get involved refuting Christianity until it actually provides some evidence worth refuting."

[athrock]

And it is just as POINTLESS for a skeptic to parrot "There is no evidence for God" (Since there is circumstantial evidence, at least.) than it is for the believer to chant, "God said it. I believe it. And that settles it." (No, it really doesn't settle anything.)

This is incredibly vapid.

Obviously, I stimulated your response; you were challenged to do so.

This is atheistforums.org. You must know this.

Well, sure. I came looking for forums like this (There is another, smaller one with a similar name as I'm sure you're aware.)

So we have an entire site setup around a position taken regarding a very specific question: does god exist. Now you come along to inform us that making the observation that there is no evidence for god is 'POINTLESS'. Not only is it not pointless, it is THE fucking point.

But note that I did not say your position is wrong; I only said that parroting a phrase is pointless (for both sides - did you miss that?). And why? Because (as I said) there IS evidence...just not evidence that most here find convincing. But that does mean that there is NO evidence. Heck, a jury may find SOME arguments made by the prosecutor compelling but insufficient to convict.

Maybe I'm wrong, but I don't think very many people in this forum or elsewhere who call themselves atheists genuinely believe that there is literally no evidence. Some do think that. But for most skeptics, I'd bet that they may occasionally, begrudgingly say, "Okay, I'll grant you believers this or that point, but it isn't enough to tilt the balance in favor of belief that a god exists or that Baha'u'llah is the most recent manifestation of him."

And just as a person who claims to have seen Bigfoot may show me a grainy photo of a tiny blur that he says is legit, I can't COMPLETELY discount it without hard evidence that it is a forgery. So, it goes into the "dubious" pile...but it can't be discarded altogether, either.

[Edwardo Piet]

And it is just as POINTLESS for a skeptic to parrot "There is no evidence for God" (Since there is circumstantial evidence, at least.)

No there isn't circumstantial evidence.

I agree it's pointless to just parrot it if saying "there is no evidence for God" was meant to be an argument. But it isn't. The point is that it almost certainly is the case, and if you disagree, please provide some actual evidence, not a bunch of arguments - whether they're fallacious or valid: They're not evidence.

If I say "there is no evidence for the Flying Spaghetti Monster" is that really so unreasonable a thing to say? The point is until someone provides evidence for the FSM why should I take the Pastafarian seriously? And the same goes for Christians.

[Cato]

I realize it was not your intention to open a huge can of worms, but when you make positive statements like this, you are obligated to provide a supporting argument or be relegated to the category of background chatter.

No supporting argument is required. As a species we observe existence with our five senses and have developed the ability to extend the powers of these senses through technology. No matter where we look, listen, taste, touch or smell there is no evidence for god. I can easily be proved wrong through simple demonstration. If there were any evidence, atheists would have it constantly shoved down our collective throat, but this never happens; never.

Who calls the Big Bang "god"? Not theists or atheists from what I've read. That would be akin to calling the the telephone the inventor instead of the invention. Precision is important here. Believers claim that God caused the Big Bang...it did not cause itself.

Precision is important here, but it is you who is lacking the attention to detail. I claimed that people call the CAUSE of the Big Bang god; a point you agree with in your last sentence.

[athrock]

To say that something is self-defeating is a positive statement requiring an argument and evidence.

You may be right, of course, but merely asserting it doesn't advance the ball.

Very true, but what I said is within the context of my other posts on this thread.

As I have reiterated over and over: Christianity is completely lacking any evidence regardless of how bad any atheists arguments against it are. At the end of the day Christians can defeat atheists in a debate as much as they like, and atheists can fail to refute the Christian arguments over and over: At the end of the day the onus is still on Christianity to provide evidence, and Christians continue to fail to do so.

That's all I mean by "Christianity is self-defeating." As I have explained over and over on this thread: There's nothing worth refuting because it completely lacks any evidence.,

I'm not saying it's self-defeating as in disproven, I'm saying it's self-defeating as in "I don't have to even get involved refuting Christianity until it actually provides some evidence worth refuting."

And this is where we disagree. There is SOME evidence - even if it is only in the form of philosophical arguments. But there it is nonetheless.

[downbeatplumb]

And it is just as POINTLESS for a skeptic to parrot "There is no evidence for God" (Since there is circumstantial evidence, at least.)

No there isn't circumstantial evidence.

I agree it's pointless to just parrot it if saying "there is no evidence for God" was meant to be an argument. But it isn't. The point is that it almost certainly is the case, and if you disagree, please provide some actual evidence, not a bunch of arguments - whether they're fallacious or valid: They're not evidence.

If I say "there is no evidence for the Flying Spaghetti Monster" is that really so unreasonable a thing to say? The point is until someone provides evidence for the FSM why should I take the Pastafarian seriously? And the same goes for Christians.

No evidence for the FSM! we stay on the ground because we are gently pushed down by invisible noodly appendages, that we do not fly off into space is circumstantial proof of the FSM!