Atheism vs. Christianity

[Creepoc Infinite]

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

This time I'll be more specific.
What are the pros and cons of Atheism and what are the pros and cons of Christianity in particular?

This thread can also tackle the topic of what evidence is there to support Christianity? And what is your opinion of the arguments both sides use to support their positions.

Atheists usually use counter arguments or refutations.
And an argument argument that an Atheist uses are usually scientific ones.

Christian apologetics seem to use many arguments that breaks down to arguing semantics, logical arguments, testimonials, and so on.
But very few scientific arguments.

So in this regard, I ask what you think.
Which side is better?
Not morally
Not as a social construct

Which one has better arguments and which side wins more debates?

[Conserative Morality]

Which strains of atheism vs. which strains of Christianity?

[Ifreann]

You may as well have people compare the pros and cons of chocolate and cheese.

[Conserative Morality]

You may as well have people compare the pros and cons of chocolate and cheese.

Chocolate wins.

[Gaiserin]

You may as well have people compare the pros and cons of chocolate and cheese.

Chocolate wins.

Cheese chips are good too.

[Bunkeranlage]

This argument's been going on for 2,000 years. Neither side has been able to fully convince the other.

[Ashmoria]

I don't think that it is sensible to suggest that one can choose to be one or the other. if you don't believe you probably wont be a Christian, if you do believe you probably wont be an atheist.

it is better to know what you believe and why and act accordingly.

[Of the people of Canada]

Chocolate wins.

Cheese chips are good too.

nah man its all about chocolate even more so if it has caramel.

[Creepoc Infinite]

Which strains of atheism vs. which strains of Christianity?

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.

[Crysuko]

Well this was derailed in short order

[Sungai Pusat]

Atheists usually use counter arguments or refutations.
And an argument argument that an Atheist uses are usually scientific ones.

Christian apologetics seem to use many arguments that breaks down to arguing semantics, logical arguments, testimonials, and so on.
But very few scientific arguments.

And the reason for this is very simple:

Logically, most atheists reason that, at the end of the day, it is the religious who have to provide an argument as to why their particular God exists, since atheists are only either claiming that there is none to begin with or rejecting the versions of God brought forth thus far, while the religious of any particular religion are advocating that their particular God is the one true God. (Maybe I am completely wrong on this front, feel free to correct me)

On which side seems more credible, I tend to side on the atheistic front, if only because it doesn't claim to know that something that is regarded as intangible in our realm happens to be of a version that they say is true.

[Creepoc Infinite]

This argument's been going on for 2,000 years. Neither side has been able to fully convince the other.

For longer than that I'd like to think.
But eventually everything comes to a head.

And modern science is helping atheism gain new ground in the debate, giving us tons of credibility. So I think that change may be coming.

[Ifreann]

This argument's been going on for 2,000 years. Neither side has been able to fully convince the other.

For longer than that I'd like to think.

I wonder how Christians could have been arguing with atheists before the creation of Christianity...

[Of the people of Canada]

Atheists usually use counter arguments or refutations.
And an argument argument that an Atheist uses are usually scientific ones.

Christian apologetics seem to use many arguments that breaks down to arguing semantics, logical arguments, testimonials, and so on.
But very few scientific arguments.

And the reason for this is very simple:

Logically, most atheists reason that, at the end of the day, it is the religious who have to provide an argument as to why their particular God exists, since atheists are only either claiming that there is none to begin with or rejecting the versions of God brought forth thus far, while the religious of any particular religion are advocating that their particular God is the one true God. (Maybe I am completely wrong on this front, feel free to correct me)

On which side seems more credible, I tend to side on the atheistic front, if only because it doesn't claim to know that something that is regarded as intangible in our realm happens to be of a version that they say is true.

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?"

[Creepoc Infinite]

Atheists usually use counter arguments or refutations.
And an argument argument that an Atheist uses are usually scientific ones.

Christian apologetics seem to use many arguments that breaks down to arguing semantics, logical arguments, testimonials, and so on.
But very few scientific arguments.

And the reason for this is very simple:

Logically, most atheists reason that, at the end of the day, it is the religious who have to provide an argument as to why their particular God exists, since atheists are only either claiming that there is none to begin with or rejecting the versions of God brought forth thus far, while the religious of any particular religion are advocating that their particular God is the one true God. (Maybe I am completely wrong on this front, feel free to correct me)

On which side seems more credible, I tend to side on the atheistic front, if only because it doesn't claim to know that something that is regarded as intangible in our realm happens to be of a version that they say is true.

I've seen trends with many different sources of information (mostly news media)
Whenever someone says that they know the truth, they immediately lose cradibility.
The more they say, "my ideas are objectively true" the more likely they are full of shit.

And religions tend to make extraordinary claims of absolute truth more often than anyone else.

[Bunkeranlage]

This argument's been going on for 2,000 years. Neither side has been able to fully convince the other.

For longer than that I'd like to think.
But eventually everything comes to a head.

And modern science is helping atheism gain new ground in the debate, giving us tons of credibility. So I think that change may be coming.

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

[Creepoc Infinite]

For longer than that I'd like to think.

I wonder how Christians could have been arguing with atheists before the creation of Christianity...

The god debate in General would've lasted longer than Christianity.
And what about Judaism?
That's quite similar to Christianity is it not?

[Bunkeranlage]

I wonder how Christians could have been arguing with atheists before the creation of Christianity...

The god debate in General would've lasted longer than Christianity.
And what about Judaism?
That's quite similar to Christianity is it not?

No, not at all. For one, the Christians believe Jesus is the Messiah, something the Jews definitely don't.

[Ashmoria]

I wonder how Christians could have been arguing with atheists before the creation of Christianity...

The god debate in General would've lasted longer than Christianity.
And what about Judaism?
That's quite similar to Christianity is it not?

well, no

but its still specifically not included in the thread.

[Of the people of Canada]

I wonder how Christians could have been arguing with atheists before the creation of Christianity...

The god debate in General would've lasted longer than Christianity.
And what about Judaism?
That's quite similar to Christianity is it not?

judaism if im right was Christianity its religious book is the old testament of the bible new testanments jesus comeing in and saying fuck all that shit

[Sungai Pusat]

And the reason for this is very simple:

Logically, most atheists reason that, at the end of the day, it is the religious who have to provide an argument as to why their particular God exists, since atheists are only either claiming that there is none to begin with or rejecting the versions of God brought forth thus far, while the religious of any particular religion are advocating that their particular God is the one true God. (Maybe I am completely wrong on this front, feel free to correct me)

On which side seems more credible, I tend to side on the atheistic front, if only because it doesn't claim to know that something that is regarded as intangible in our realm happens to be of a version that they say is true.

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)

[Ifreann]

I wonder how Christians could have been arguing with atheists before the creation of Christianity...

The god debate in General would've lasted longer than Christianity.

Right, but read the title of the thread.

And what about Judaism?
That's quite similar to Christianity is it not?

It is not.

[Creepoc Infinite]

For longer than that I'd like to think.
But eventually everything comes to a head.

And modern science is helping atheism gain new ground in the debate, giving us tons of credibility. So I think that change may be coming.

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.
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.

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.

[Macbeth]

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.

[Shnercropolis]

IS GUD RL?