Sorry. I'm new here, but I'm already confused.


Why are people arguing the existence/non-existence of God? Honestly is anyone aware of an online conversion being made? In either direction? Has anyone EVER said, "Oh wow, I guess you're right. So there really is/isn't a God."?


To me it makes more sense debating the existence of Santa Clause - which is supported by a great deal more physical evidence. At least I've SEEN Santa Clause.


It seems that engaging in such arguments actually adds strength to theist perspectives because a logical argument should assume a reasonable basis on both sides. Whoever has the best case or makes the best argument wins.


Are there any sound logical arguments in support of God? I assume not. Why then do we argue with people who are not swayed by certainty?


More broadly, why are we here (at TA).

Views: 433

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

No one HAS TO prove God doesn't exist. The burden of proof lies with anyone who contends that God does exist. If the contention can't be proven it can simply be ignored - just like my flying pencil.
Exactly. The ONLY reason to leave room for doubt is when there is conflicting evidence. And there are plenty of political decisions made in our society daily which have conflicting evidence. This is what doubt is intended for. Not imaginary concepts which have zero evidence.
Hedging their bets? I'm certain there is no god. We crawled out of the primordial soup under the right circumstance. A series of events made it possible....accidentally.
Yep, I find that supremely annoying too. It's what happens with mushy atheist who convert! hehehe! It's trendy atheism instead solid atheism, it's why I'm not too interested in converting people, I don't appreciate the whole trendy aspect "atheism" is going through and the various soft terminologies some use in order to inflate our numbers.
Why Argue? To some degree you have a point. I personally don’t have the passion or desire to debate if there is a god(s) or not. My approach is this.
For the purposes of discussion I allow a believer to believe what they want. Instead of trying to convince them otherwise, I question their morality to believe in such nonsense. I’m primarily talking about Christianity, Judaism and Islam. Specifically I am more focused on why someone would choose to worship. Let’s assume everything in the Bible or Koran is true. Let’s assume there is a personal god who created humans 13 billion years after the universe was created to test us to see if we accept and worship him. Let’s assume they are right and there is something called sin, there is a devil, etc, etc, etc.
My question to them is why do they choose to worship. Even is a god did create you and demand you worship him on threat of eternal hell… you don’t have a problem with that? You like to be pushed around… you like to be threatened? You like to be told what to do? You like living under a dictator? Nothing wrong with being grateful or thankful. Nothing wrong for simple acknowledgement to a creator for life. Let’s not be complete assholes. But to worship? If you were a god, and created living-thinking beings in your own universe …. Would you demand they worship you? Would you threaten them with eternal hell if they didn’t acknowledge you? This is love? Nothing that would demand such nonsense loves you. Nothing that demands you worship it loves you.
So that’s my approach. Funny, I have never heard an argument from a theist that could counter this. This is the primary issue I think atheist should use to help theist rid themselves of their deity. Not so much if there is a god or not, but -so what if there is…. Should you still worship one?

This is from the short clip of Dawkins full video on "The Greatest Show on Earth."


Evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins explains that he no longer debates creationists because his presence only validates their status. He compares the situation to a reproductive scientist agreeing to debate an advocate of the "stork theory."


I'm a new member also.  TA has help.  There are very few atheists in my friends and family.  Heck, my best friend in the whole world was an atheist and now a full blown Muslim. 


I'm also more inclined to tell someone I am an atheist now.  Let them see I am an honest happy person without a god.


And maybe sometimes I do want to persuade others.  Not that I do this.  911 and other acts of violence may be about oil, power, politics, etc.  But pretty much the only way to persuade a human being to crash into a building, is through religion. If you are an atheist, you clearly see things like this.  If you are a christian, well, you just gave your religion another high five!

My battle is based on letting the most people know that I'm an atheist. Kind of like the gay "coming out" years. The more people idiots get to know personally, in real life, that are different than them, the more difficult it becomes for them to retain their position.

I think deciding when, or with whom, to argue should depend on the circumstances/person. I've decided it is absolutely futile to argue with my mother about this stuff. She refuses to even consider the idea there is no god. My brother and I have both made the best arguments, and have even stumped her, but then she pulls out, "Well, I just don't understand the mind of God" or some other BS, cop-out answer.

I de-converted from Christianity to atheism mostly on my own, with a little assistance from my father. The questions he posed to me weren't convincing to me, but I was already honestly seeking truth. In my experience, I don't think I ever encountered any atheists who had really honed their debate skills while I was a Believer. What happened was that I was researching the history of Christianity and Judaism, and it all crumbled like a house of cards. It did take a while for me to finally conclude there was no god at all, even though I dumped Christianity pretty quickly.

My brother de-converted around the same time, but we had separate experiences (which was very cool). He's been a lot more outspoken about his lack of belief to his friends, and to our family. He has had quite a lot of success actually de-converting staunch Christians. He's charismatic anyway, and I don't think that I would have the same sway over people. Or there's just a part of me that wants to avoid this particular conflict in the public sphere. I won't enter a debate unless I know there's ample time to hash things out, and that rarely happens anymore.

Anyway, I see the value in debating these things. People are de-converting in droves lately, and I think it's because of these online conversations. You just can't argue with everyone. There are some that it really is futile to engage.

Charisma is a dangerous talent! Charisma is one of the foundations of religious preaching. It does NOT reach the mind in the same way that, it makes the mind make emotional decisions instead of rational decisions. Personally, I do not think we should use charisma to deconvert people. The resulting atheist is mushy and is most likely to reconvert in the future.

Charisma is a personality trait, and I do realize many religious preachers/teachers utilize that talent to their advantage. It can be dangerous, but it can also be beneficial. People tend to follow leaders, and charisma is the hallmark of a leader. You're cynical enough to understand that people are sheep and they seek a leader. It's innate. Why not at least present them with a leader who's actually trying to educate them? Dawkins, Harris, and even Hitchens, all have charisma. Sagan had it. Some would call it "swag". There's just something about some people that draws others in; makes them want to listen. Sure, they can use that natural draw to manipulate, but charisma isn't the only personality trait people can use to manipulate. Whether or not you like "charisma" is irrelevant. Some people just have it, just like any other personality trait.

Even still... I think you're taking my example to the extreme. People listen to my brother is my only real point, because he has a personality that people are drawn to. He may not be aware of that. He's certainly not purposefully utilizing it. He's just talking and debating, and people listen.

And I've seen you use the "mushy atheist" term pretty frequently. How many of these have you met? I think a couple have stumbled onto this site, but they left pretty quick.

Were you ever a Christian, or religious? I'm just going to assume that you've pretty much always been atheist, and let you in on something. If you're a Believer, it's no small thing to denounce God and Jesus. It's monumental and life-altering. I understand the point you're making... if people are so easily swayed one way, it wouldn't take much to turn them back... but in this instance, I think you don't realize the gravity of de-conversion for Christians. It took me two years to let go and admit I didn't believe there was a god. Well, I think that puts me outside the realm of "mushy atheist", but... it was terrifying each step of the way. There are (according the the Bible) serious consequences to "turning your back on God", so if anyone were not truly convinced there was no god, I doubt they'd be so flippant and say they were atheist just to get in on a cute trend.

I don't think atheism is a trend. I think people are finally being exposed to the arguments against religion and the idea of a deity. It is catching on, but I know very few atheists that would ever turn back to religion. Ever. It does happen, but rarely. Taking the final step and admitting there is no god is SERIOUS business to people indoctrinated their whole life.

I doubt I've convinced you though; I've gotten the impression you generally don't like people anyway, and don't think they're worth the effort in any case... including saving if they're dying (the world is overpopulated, after all). But I haven't given up on humanity, and so I'll continue debating them in the off-chance they have a light-bulb moment. Which is exactly what happened to me, and I can promise you I would never turn back to religion. 

Besides, debates plant seeds. Maybe they don't de-convert immediately, but something said makes them start thinking and researching. You can't assume it's ever an instant thing.

And you can't discount where the argument is made, either. Just because they happen to be conducted on the internet doesn't mean the arguments aren't credible or convincing. The arguments against religion are numerous... and logically sound. So who cares if those excellent arguments are presented by stick figures on YouTube or in 140 characters or less on Twitter? A good argument is a good argument, and people are utilizing their resources to reach millions of people... and effectively. GOOD FOR THEM.

Cara, I don't dislike people, but I do dislike the present state of humanity, as a third generation atheist, yes, I'm a bit accustomed to finding the rest of humanity annoying. You make several good points before that comment though. I don't mean to say that all converts are mushy. But if one converts for mushy reasons... you obviously have not converted for mushy reasons.

-Charisma is the reason our political system is so out of wack. Dumb humans value charisma over intelligence.

Charismatic atheists simply shift dumb people's religion from gods to neo-liberalism or Humanism or some other dogma.

To me getting gawd out of one's life is not the ultimate goal, the ultimate goal is undoing the stupidity and naivete created by the gawd connection. Only once people dump all religious/dogmatic thinking and start thinking for themselves instead of following others will we truly achieve rational humans.


© 2023   Created by Rebel.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service