Why Christians Don't have to prove that God exists, how to deal with it?

[Live]

Originally Posted by simonecuttlefish

I love that show. The Atheist Experience has been running for over ten years now, and you hear the same old same old over and over. and they keep at it. They do so very deliberately, because as I've heard Matt say repeatedly, even to the caller he is responding to live, that it's not about them. There are many people watching the show, and the show hosts put their arguments forward for the benefit of the audience, to learn from, not the dick that just rang up to preach at them.

Definitely, I can testify to be the one that was sitting in the pool of people a few years ago; from being apathetic to taking a stance as an atheist. Not to this show in particular, but hearing prominent atheists speak really opened my eyes, and I'm glad it did. It's just a great learning experience to get such a range of different perspectives.

[Fearless]

Originally Posted by Fiery

Which is why it is fun when fundies show up here and the wagon's circle and the fun begins. I love reading the arguments put forth and the inability of them to squirm or deceive their way out. It is entertaining and educational.

After all, let's face it, they're not coming here to be de-converted.

[simonecuttlefish]

Originally Posted by Fearless

After all, let's face it, they're not coming here to be de-converted.

Yes, and that's why they are such a potentially valuable resource for everyone else. They make some old preacher point that can easily be gutted. Everyone else gets to see how these tired old arguments can be easily put down. Now there is two choices for the OP preacher. If they engage your argument (99% won't), but if they DO do the apologist thing you can go in for the kill, and point out to the other readers what circular logic is, which logical fallacies they are using, and what debunking resources are available. If they choose to, and I believe most will, ignore everything you said and bang out another tired old apology, BRING IT. More meat for the grinder.

Maybe one day one of these posting preachers will actually give us some new material to explore, or at least help keep us all up to date on the latest WOOist apology tricks and misinformation sites. Perhaps the only thing to watch out for is someone who seems to be mentally ill (other than creatardism). Time to back away there imho, as driving someone with psychological/mental troubles into a deeper state of confusion/frustration/delusion/persecution crisis seems cruel and unnecessary to me (just my feeling).

Perhaps we should value preachers; they potentially have a lot to teach us all.

[FSM]

Originally Posted by PkG

Atheists normally say that Christians have to prove that God exists in order to believe in him, but Christians do have a quite reasonable argument: "If God could 100% be proven to be true, there would be no faith, which is essential for religion"
This argument has always bothered me, so I was wondering what a more experienced person's approach to debunk this logic would be.

The argument should not bother you, because it is not a reasonable argument, it is nothing but doubletalk. It is in fact an argument to their detriment, as it is actually admitting their evidence is weak so they have to rely on faith alone.

Something either exists or it doesn't.
Something is either true or it isn't.
If someone clams that something "may" exist or something "may" be true then the onus is always on the person making the claim to provide evidence.
That evidence of course does not need to be 100% tangible proof for people to generally accept that something is true, but it usually needs to be pretty close to that 100% mark.
Who for instance would believe that a coin is going to come down heads with better than 50/50?
Who would think they really have a better than 1 in several million chance of winning lotto? You can *believe* you are going to win lotto, but that doesn't make it true or the odds better.

Just like the recent Keli Lane murder conviction. There was no hard evidence of any murder, but all the circumstantial evidence must have been close to that 100% mark so as to be beyond all reasonable doubt.

Religions have no real tangible evidence. Nothing, zip, zilch, nada. It's hearsay at best.
That is why they are left with faith, it's all they have.
It's sad really when you see them point to tangible things like the bible as proof.


I actually don't mind people who believe in a "God" or someone that created the universe et.al, as long as they are prepared to admit it is nothing more than a personal belief based on absolutely no real evidence at all.

Organised religions on the other hand point to their holy books etc as "proof", and that's really quite pathetic.

Dave.

[Cosmic Teapot]

It's a weak arguement that only survives when those that assert it know their proposition is devoid of proof and always will be.
The question is; if science found incontrovertible proof that God does exist, would xtians dismiss this proof in favour of their "faith"?
Fuck no says I. They'd all over that proof like a rash and faith be damned.

Sent from my HTC Desire

[Spud Henley]

I have an answer to the question "Why Christians Don't have to prove that God exists, how to deal with it?" I have faith that god doesn't exist!

[Darwinsbulldog]

Originally Posted by Spud Henley

I have an answer to the question "Why Christians Don't have to prove that God exists, how to deal with it?" I have faith that god doesn't exist!

Hmm.., .....a dangerous ploy, IMHO. The god brigade is convinced that atheism is a religion to begin with. Probably do more harm than good.

[clementine]

Originally Posted by simonecuttlefish

How can I have "faith" in a charlatan and trickster, that sent himself to earth, by getting his own mother pregnant, and then call it a sacrifice when he knew he would rise to an eternal paradise.

eughhh that's what pisses me off most about the whole 'jesus sacrificed himself so we could be saved(!!!)' bosh

[angslan]

I have to agree that the argument about faith being a requirement makes no sense. You could ask, "Why is faith a requirement?" and the answer would be "God made it so for <xxx> reason." And then you'd have to ask, "Why is <xxx> reason important?" And, of course, there is never a reason except "God said so" (because God is omnipotent and created everything), so, in essence, faith is arbitrary and God is a dictator.
This will never convince a Christian, I assume, but it may assuage your thoughts.

[Senexis]

I think the question is, "Why is faith a requirement NOW?"

Because it certainly wasn't a requirement for any of the characters in the book, who were either spoken to directly, or via clearly magical objects such as burning bushes or talking donkeys, and/or had magical powers of their own bestowed upon them.

Is it just a coincidence that, as people have become more knowledgeable and documentation and communication more rigorous and accurate, that the "miracles" got smaller and more mundane?

Miracles these days consist of people getting better from illnesses, or having lucky escapes from dangerous situations, or really bad weather. Y'know, stuff that just happens.

No-one re-grows an amputated limb, no seas part, no bushes burn and speak... the people in the book didn't NEED faith, they had the whole magic show going on. Why don't we get it?