Atheism vs. Christianity

[Creepoc Infinite]

I think it's time for me to do another thread concerning religion.

Yeah. Thanks. There's a definite lack of these on NSG.

Whose arguments are better? Ask those arguing. I'm sure they'll be able to tell you.

This is my favorite thing to talk about besides video games.

[Of the people of Canada]

you have a good point but, on the god side its saying ""weres your evidence?" these thousands of years old texts they have been carbon dated and what purpose do they have to lie about this?"

I wouldn't be able to judge why someone might lie about the texts that are carbon dated. (Apologies if that's not a good enough response, I'm not able to tease out very well what you said)

no its ok im not great or even that good at communicating in general the tests were done by labs documents dug up by historians and archaeologist dated/translated. what i ment was the documents themselfs the words on them what would they have to lie about this for?

[Of the people of Canada]

IS GUD RL?

maybe i say yes some say no.

[Bunkeranlage]

I'll just leave this here:

"It was my science that drove me to the conclusion that the world was much more complicated than can be explained by science... it was only through the supernatural that I can understand the the mystery of existence"
- Allan Rex Sandage, astronomer

Ah, I know this quote.
Different people with different upbringings will come to different conclusions.

He was, FYI, an atheist. He only became Christian much later in his life.

Supernatural is not science. Supernatural is not nature. If it isn't part of nature, than it doesn't exist in our reality. So either this quote I was a poor choice of words, or he is full of shit.

You're saying that the discoverer of the very first quasar is full of shit?

As for the universe being too complicated to be explained by science. That only speaks for our CURRENT understanding.
Science is not static, it is constantly gaining new information.

Yes, nobody disputes that. Using science to try and explain the supernatural, however, is like using theology to explain how I digested my dinner. Thomas Hobbes, after all, said that the nature of all religious entities are matters not for science, but for faith.

[Conserative Morality]

You can elaborate on that.
The most popular form of Christianity in America is Protestantism I think.
Catholicism is the largest denomination world wise.

The more outspoken Christians are literalists and fundamentalists. So they are more relevant in this topic than other less literalist Christians.
Moderates and reformist Christians are not the topic of the thread as they are not the ones who are known for being apologetics.

As for atheists,
The ones who actually care about the whole god debate and have something to say about it.
This can be any atheist, from
Christopher Hitchens and Richard Dawkins
To
Friedrich Nietzche and Voltaire.

Old world churches with traditions of serious theology and ecumenism = philosophical atheists > Hitchens style atheists > everyday Christians > fundies

[Sungai Pusat]

I wouldn't be able to judge why someone might lie about the texts that are carbon dated. (Apologies if that's not a good enough response, I'm not able to tease out very well what you said)

no its ok im not great or even that good at communicating in general the tests were done by labs documents dug up by historians and archaeologist dated/translated. what i ment was the documents themselfs the words on them what would they have to lie about this for?

Ah, I see then.

Well, back when they were recorded, they probably didn't expect for the texts to be preserved, buried in the ground, then dug up for us to find: Perhaps it was a recording of what was thought or what had happened at the time. Or maybe they just wanted to make gossip within those documents.

Regardless, I probably should've been more specific. "Tangible" meant some sort of definitive proof that, at the least, something was controlling us, the something being unrecognisable to us tangibly, but of which is able to definitively prove their existence by... I guess, doing something that only a God could. Like, perhaps, lifting a giant mountain magically from the ground before placing it gently back down, affecting not a single person on it. If that ever happened at a point in time and we didn't have the technology to fake it yet, I would probably start questioning my atheism.

[Creepoc Infinite]

Ah, I know this quote.
Different people with different upbringings will come to different conclusions.

He was, FYI, an atheist. He only became Christian much later in his life.

Supernatural is not science. Supernatural is not nature. If it isn't part of nature, than it doesn't exist in our reality. So either this quote I was a poor choice of words, or he is full of shit.

You're saying that the discoverer of the very first quasar is full of shit?

As for the universe being too complicated to be explained by science. That only speaks for our CURRENT understanding.
Science is not static, it is constantly gaining new information.

Yes, nobody disputes that. Using science to try and explain the supernatural, however, is like using theology to explain how I digested my dinner. Thomas Hobbes, after all, said that the nature of all religious entities are matters not for science, but for faith.

The quest to find a use for faith is sickening.
It's not a matter of "science is for this and faith is for that."
Faith is not equal to science. And seeing that it has been admitted that religion cannot be explained by science completely nukes Ken Ham out of the water.

So if science is not able to explain something as nebulous as religion then where does its credibility as truth come from?

[Creepoc Infinite]

You can elaborate on that.
The most popular form of Christianity in America is Protestantism I think.
Catholicism is the largest denomination world wise.

The more outspoken Christians are literalists and fundamentalists. So they are more relevant in this topic than other less literalist Christians.
Moderates and reformist Christians are not the topic of the thread as they are not the ones who are known for being apologetics.

As for atheists,
The ones who actually care about the whole god debate and have something to say about it.
This can be any atheist, from
Christopher Hitchens and Richard Dawkins
To
Friedrich Nietzche and Voltaire.

Old world churches with traditions of serious theology and ecumenism = philosophical atheists > Hitchens style atheists > everyday Christians > fundies

That's basically how I'd see it.
Except that old theology is probably outdated in terms of social issues and science and maybe some philosophy.
"Hitchens style" atheists are sure to have better arguments and social awareness, the same goes for philosophical atheists such as Nietzche.

[Conserative Morality]

The quest to find a use for faith is sickening.
It's not a matter of "science is for this and faith is for that."
Faith is not equal to science. And seeing that it has been admitted that religion cannot be explained by science completely nukes Ken Ham out of the water.

So if science is not able to explain something as nebulous as religion then where does its credibility as truth come from?

Good question. Why isn't science capable of answering the sort of philosophical questions that religions and ideologies pose? If it can't provide answers like that, what good are all of its equations? Where's its credibility?

[Shahasha]

Actually, your wrong about one thing: Christians do have scientific support, just look up Answers in Genisis. (By the way, Ifreann, awesome profile picture)

[Creepoc Infinite]

Actually, your wrong about one thing: Christians do have scientific support, just look up Answers in Genisis. (By the way, Ifreann, awesome profile picture)

Pick a source that is not absolute bullshit next time.

[Bunkeranlage]

He was, FYI, an atheist. He only became Christian much later in his life.



You're saying that the discoverer of the very first quasar is full of shit?



Yes, nobody disputes that. Using science to try and explain the supernatural, however, is like using theology to explain how I digested my dinner. Thomas Hobbes, after all, said that the nature of all religious entities are matters not for science, but for faith.

The quest to find a use for faith is sickening.
It's not a matter of "science is for this and faith is for that."
Faith is not equal to science. And seeing that it has been admitted that religion cannot be explained by science completely nukes Ken Ham out of the water.

So if science is not able to explain something as nebulous as religion then where does its credibility as truth come from?

So... what are you trying to say here?

Actually, your wrong about one thing: Christians do have scientific support, just look up Answers in Genisis. (By the way, Ifreann, awesome profile picture)

Pick a source that is not absolute bullshit next time.

You know, you could have put that in a less condescending way...

[Creepoc Infinite]

The quest to find a use for faith is sickening.
It's not a matter of "science is for this and faith is for that."
Faith is not equal to science. And seeing that it has been admitted that religion cannot be explained by science completely nukes Ken Ham out of the water.

So if science is not able to explain something as nebulous as religion then where does its credibility as truth come from?

So... what are you trying to say here?

Pick a source that is not absolute bullshit next time.

You know, you could have put that in a less condescending way...

I could have.
But I find it next to impossible to take Answers in Genesis seriously

[Bunkeranlage]

So... what are you trying to say here?



You know, you could have put that in a less condescending way...

I could have.
But I find it next to impossible to take Answers in Genesis seriously

TBH, few of us do.

[Conserative Morality]

You know, you could have put that in a less condescending way...

AoG is really exhausting. After you see it a few dozen times, it gets to be... torturous.

[Bunkeranlage]

You know, you could have put that in a less condescending way...

AoG is really exhausting. After you see it a few dozen times, it gets to be... torturous.

Yes, I think it gets to us OEC people as much as it does to the atheists.

Still no reason to be rude to a new guy, though... at least, IMO.

[Creepoc Infinite]

You know, you could have put that in a less condescending way...

AoG is really exhausting. After you see it a few dozen times, it gets to be... torturous.

Precisely. AoG is a joke. And it is not scientifically credible in any way.

[Conserative Morality]

Yes, I think it gets to us OEC people as much as it does to the atheists.

Still no reason to be rude to a new guy, though... at least, IMO.

The rudeness gets the hackles up and sends them tumbling headlong into arguments they don't fully understand.

That's how these dirty goddamn atheists on this forum got me.

[MERIZoC]

Pros and cons in what sense? Why does it have to be vs? What branches/groups of Christianity/Atheism?

[Creepoc Infinite]

AoG is really exhausting. After you see it a few dozen times, it gets to be... torturous.

Yes, I think it gets to us OEC people as much as it does to the atheists.

Still no reason to be rude to a new guy, though... at least, IMO.

Okay

[Creepoc Infinite]

Pros and cons in what sense? Why does it have to be vs? What branches/groups of Christianity/Atheism?

Fundamentalist Christians and literalist Christians.
As they are the ones who are the most outspoken.

And as far as atheists go, any atheist who cares about the god argument

[Sungai Pusat]

AoG is really exhausting. After you see it a few dozen times, it gets to be... torturous.

Precisely. AoG is a joke. And it is not scientifically credible in any way.

...honestly, I somewhat wish that I had just left AoG alone.

I didn't exactly get some sort of splitting headache from their statements, but there were enough points of contention going through in my head against the arguments they gave. On one article. (Especially with how they invoked circular reasoning as justification for the Bible being a factual source)

[Fortschritte]

I wouldn't argue that either side is inherently better than the other. One is a lack of belief, and the other is faith in a God. I don't see why we feel the need to create "pros and cons " for each.

[Shilya]

In one corner, the claim that a book that's more than a thousand years old is supposedly the word of god.
In the other corner, the claim that said book isn't the word of god.

The debates usually come down to your ability to eloquently argue that you can't prove that it didn't happen that way, and that you can't prove that the imaginary isn't actually real and you just don't know. No one "wins" those arguments. Both sides masturbate to them, as far as they're invested into them.

A strange game. The only winning move is not to play. How about a nice game of chess?

[Need a Name]

Actually, your wrong about one thing: Christians do have scientific support, just look up Answers in Genisis. (By the way, Ifreann, awesome profile picture)

Pick a source that is not absolute bullshit next time.

Source?

I've seen that said a billion and a half times without showing any evidence.

And don't you dare say,"It's Christian, so they're biased! That means it can't be accurate!"