As above, Christians sure like to pretend they are talking to atheists lately, and of course, don’t allow comments on these ever so wonderful arguments they think they have. Wonder why? 😀
So, here we have Nick Watt, with his talk to an atheist.
And here is my response. Yeah, I’m bored so lots of posts.
So, here I am, an atheist. Let’ me respond to your claims.
It’s always nice to see a Christian trying to poison the well right off. I am interested in hearing your opinion, but I will not let baseless and false claims stand without addressing them. If you consider that “arguing” then yep, you have nothing and only want a submissive audience.
I am need respectful of science and have reason to trust it. I see no evidence of you respecting science. You use the same failed arguments as those who are ignorant of it. We can observe love, hate, jealousy etc and that is part of the scientific method. We can also look at brain scans when people are experiencing such emotions and see the brain light up as we would expect. Little can be technically proven except for mathematics, but we certainly can have lots of evidence to support our conclusions.
Christians do love to pay word games since they have no evidence for their god. They can’t prove it exists at all. Since we know a good bit about how the brain works, nope, there is no reason to agree with the false claim that “there are elements of life and existence beyond the purview of science”. There is no evidence of the supernatural, which is what you are desperate to show exists.
Like so many Christians, you want to claim that if someone doesn’t agree with you, they are “dishonest”. Unfortunately, you can’t show this at all. Only science can discover truth so far, and religion and philosophy are baseless opinions. And nope, the burden of showing your claims to be true is still on you. You make the absurd claim, you get to show it is true. I’m sure you feel the same about the claims of other theists you disagree with.
People should indeed follow the evidence where it leads. Theists do not since they have the presupposition that some god simply must exist. Again, you still hve the burden of proof for your baseless claims. I do not since doubt is the neutral stance. And you have no evidence for them.
You claim that the universe is not pitilessly indifferent. Show it.
The universe did seem to begin. No evidence for any magical being starting it and most, if not all, religions make the same claim as you do. Show your god is the creator.
We also have no evidence for “fine-tuning”, since we have no idea how far the parameters can vary to get the same thing. All you have is being a puddle thinking how great it is that “something” made a hole in the ground “just right for it”. We fit the universe, the universe does not fit us. Your argument from personal ignorance is just more logical fallacy, that sine you don’t understand basic science, then your myth must be true.
Reality shows no evidence for any god, much less your personal version of the Christian god. The beginning of the book of Genesis makes vague claims that each Christain claims means something different. Then we have two contradictory creation stories, and a god that fails to keep out satan or intentionally lets satan in, not warning its ignorant children. And no evidence of this either “15 He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation; 16 for in him all things in heaven and on earth were created, things visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or powers—all things have been created through him and for him. 17 He himself is before all things, and in[i] him all things hold together.”
Lots of theists claim that they think their personal beliefs make better sense of reality. They are yet to show this to be the case.
Christians also love to claim that we’ll have to die to be sure. That’s not what your bible says. I should be able to see every baptized believer in Christ as personal savior being able to do what their bible claims in Mark 16, John 14 and James 5. Not a single one of you can.
You may be “captive to the word of God”, but again, every theist claims this, claims that cosmology, teology, etc agree with them, and personal belief doesn’t show that any gods exist. There is no evidence at all that you’ve tried to “undo” the evidence for your god’s existence at all. I’ve undone it with no problem at all.
Then you offer Pascal’s Wager. This assumes you have the right version of some god, and assumes you lose nothing. If wrong, you lose time and resources and could risk pissing off the right god. Christians don’t think very hard about their supposed great argument.
You do offer the wager to scare people and, like most religions, Chrsitianity depends on fear and ignorance. Your sadistic fantasies about eternal torture for anyone who disagrees with you are childish.
I also don’t have faith as you do, though Christians are desperate to pretend I do. I can show quite easily your version of your god doesn’t exist. None of the events it has supposedly caused can be shown to have happened. Your god has quite a few details, and that being is no where to be found. Chrsitians have an entire industry of apologetics to excuse their impotent god.
This is why Christians often try the “make my god vaguer” route to try to get away from the ignorant and primitive god of the bible. It becomes a “ground of being” in Tillich’s apologetics.
You then try an appeal to authority to try to pretend that if someone is smart and believes in your god, then there must be a god. Hmmm, so since there are smart people who are Muslims, Zoroastrians, Hindus, then all of those gods must exist too, per your own argument.
Lee Strobel’s argument is the typical false claims of a theist and his personal ignorance is no reason to believe him. We have evidence that indeed something can come from nothing, and again, no evidence a god is needed. We are continuing to research how abiogenesis works and again, evidence it can and still no evidence for some god. The universe is not random, and the laws of physics work quite nicely in ordering it with no god. Chaos doesn’t provide information but a system that has energy in it does. The rest, consciousness, etc are just more god of the gaps arguments, “we don’t’ understand it yet so GodDidIt.”
I know quite a bit about Elvis. He didn’t appear after he was dead either.
9 thoughts on “Not So Polite Dinner Conversation – Christians sure like to pretend they are talking to atheists”
I hate Pascal’s Wager.
And the fine-tuning argument has always made no sense to me. I came across it in an apologetics book, and my thoughts were basically, “What? This argument is useless. How do you know that? How, in the world, can you possibly understand all this stuff about parameters? How can you know there can’t be other ‘laws of nature’ in other universes that work just as well for facilitating living beings?”
exactly. many theists don’t think very hard about their apologetics.
LikeLiked by 1 person
One must forgive Pascal based on the period and the circumstances. He was born to a profoundly simplistic religious world.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I have never judged Pascal, nor even given the man much thought. I don’t consider it my place. I judge his wager, not the man 🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person
people who post that they have ‘conversations’ with those who disagree with them, but don’t allow comments on their posts for fear of actual conversations with those who disagree with them… aren’t being honest and they aren’t really having conversations. just monologuing. not worth the time to read their posts.
“We can observe love, hate, jealousy etc and that is part of the scientific method.”
You gotta expound on that one for me. Are you trying to say that the brain lighting up when we have emotions somehow proves that the concepts of love, hate, jealousy etc. are objective things that exist?
that is what I *have* said, jonny. We can see how the brain reacts with emotions. They are objective things, electric currents and chemicals running through the brain. This research is leading to some really neat therapies for depression, like intra-cranial stimulation similar to that used to help Parkinson’s patients.
If your dualism nonsense is true, this wouldn’t work.
oh, I see. I didn’t know the context of your conversation with this person. I thought you were trying to imply that the brain having these emotions somehow implies atheists have grounds for objective morality.
Oh my. there is nothing in what I wrote that says that. and what person?
There is only subjective morality. Christians show this nicely with their inability to agree on what morals this god supposedly wants. They of course all claim that their version is the right one, with no evidence at all.