Jump to content

Should atheists use science to argue with Christians


ReducedtoAtoms
 Share

Recommended Posts

Christians are extremely stubborn and I'm sure if you were able to convince a Christian God isn't real with science they were probably already skeptical. 

 

I think atheists should argue with a more supernatural/spiritual  perspective. That's only if you're like me, and are convinced aliens are real, ghosts, folklore etc. (I believe in this stuff to a certain extent) Once I got into learning about supernatural/spiritual crap it made sense to all the 'miracles' that occur. That these miracles are universal. And that I can prove that these miracles are universal. 

 

I'm not a spiritual person, not a witch either I just find that stuff interesting. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Super Moderator

Should atheists argue with christians?  I think that is really the better question to ask.  I also think there is no universal answer for either question. 

 

For my question, it really depends on the atheist (agnostic, apathetic, non-believer, godless heathen) and the person with whom he/she is speaking.  There are a lot of variables involved, such as how close the two are and what type of relationship they have, as well as how receptive both parties might be toward the arguments of the other..

 

For your question, it depends on the circumstance.  In certain circumstances, science is the best argument to make.  In others, simple but sound logic might be better employed.  Using the paranormal might be a valid recourse for brining someone from liberal christianity to pantheism or some such, if they are open to those ideas.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

In my opinion, using supernatural stuff is too "iffy".  I am not very scientific minded, but rational, logical thinking is what influenced me.  All the inconsistency in the bible prompted me to look deeper.  And the logic of our societal conditioning determining what we believed to be religious truth was the final determining factor.  

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

People were convinced of their beliefs for different reasons and will have those beliefs changed for different reasons. Attacking the ridiculous should happen in as many ways as possible as the next argument may be the one that cracks the armour. 

 

I personally found the story of Noah's ark and the science showing how impossible such a story was, very convincing. Philosophy never comes to answers but science can show what the conclusion is and importantly how that answer was reached. Once you doubt the validity of the Bible then everything else loses its mystique. 

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

43 minutes ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

Should atheists argue with christians?  I think that is really the better question to ask.  

 

True.  I think the best thing you can do is calmly invite them to examine the evidence, and then see if the seed takes roots.  Arguing, especially if it gets angry, can drive people further away.

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Super Moderator
1 hour ago, Weezer said:

 

True.  I think the best thing you can do is calmly invite them to examine the evidence, and then see if the seed takes roots.  Arguing, especially if it gets angry, can drive people further away.

 

 

But you should still call them names, though.  😁

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderator

Well for me, it was 'the science' which was a bit part of my deconversion process.

 

Things like Noah's flood, evolution, lack of archaeological evidence, a critical analysis of how the bible was written and by whom all greatly helped.

 

I also found logical arguments and philosophical arguments persuasive. The problem of evil for instance was a logical problem that while it doesn't disprove god outright, it does show that an all benevolent God cannot exist.

 

And then there was study of the bible itself. For example was Jesus killed on the day of preparation of the passover, or the day of the passover? There are conflicting accounts in the NT - not something you'd expect in an inerrant inspired text bringing us the most important message of all time.

 

In short to answer the thread question - it depends.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Should atheists use science to argue with Christians....

 

........

 

If you do, dont get into pedantic debates over the use of the words theory and proof. 

  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Krowb said:

@midniterider,

 

Are you psychic? Did you have a premonition our favorite plumber/painter friend was about to devolve his assertions into that exact pedantic debate?

 

To be honest, it was a post-monition. :)

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderator
51 minutes ago, midniterider said:

 

Should atheists use science to argue with Christians....

 

........

 

If you do, dont get into pedantic debates over the use of the words theory and proof. 

 

But what if the Christian in their ignorance proclaims that evolution is "just a theory". They need to be educated... or invited to jump off the top of a skyscraper because gravity is "just a theory". 😆

Link to comment
Share on other sites

While I would not start the argument, if the topic arose I would use all the tools at my disposal to show where the Bible falls short.

 

It has been my experience you should tread lightly around the topic of "science" as many of us were raised in a culture where "science" absolutely came with scare quotes if and when it ever contradicted the Bible - especially young earth creationism in my case.  Many Christians coming from a background similar to mine will not only NOT be swayed by a scientific argument, but were actively taught in our private christian schools how to counter those arguments (notwithstanding in hindsight those counters were extremely weak and involve a fundamental misunderstanding of proof and theory).

 

We should be aware of our own shortcomings in areas and modes of arguments and not get drawn out of our depths.  If you have a background in the sciences, by all means it may be your strongest hand to speak on competently, but it would certainly not be in my case.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, LogicalFallacy said:

 

But what if the Christian in their ignorance proclaims that evolution is "just a theory". They need to be educated... or invited to jump off the top of a skyscraper because gravity is "just a theory". 😆

 

LoL. I'll grab the popcorn.

 

I guess I dont take the word 'theory' as seriously as others. They do get superseded now and then. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superseded_theories_in_science#:~:text=In science%2C a theory is,support within the scientific community.

 

"Proof" and "Theory" do have colloquial definitions, not just the atheist preferential definition. I believe Edgarcito, a sciencey Christian used the word 'proof' here once ... I bet other scientists use it in that same colloquial way. If someone looks into the microscope and sees dead microbes, that's proof they're dead, right? 

 

See what happens when you poke me with a stick? All these silly words come out. Happy New Year, Sir. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Super Moderator
1 minute ago, midniterider said:

If someone looks into the microscope and sees dead microbes, that's proof they're dead, right? 

Not necessarily.  Many microbes form spores that may appear dead, only to be rejuvenated when environmental conditions are more conducive. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, Krowb said:

While I would not start the argument, if the topic arose I would use all the tools at my disposal to show where the Bible falls short.

 

It has been my experience you should tread lightly around the topic of "science" as many of us were raised in a culture where "science" absolutely came with scare quotes if and when it ever contradicted the Bible - especially young earth creationism in my case.  Many Christians coming from a background similar to mine will not only NOT be swayed by a scientific argument, but were actively taught in our private christian schools how to counter those arguments (notwithstanding in hindsight those counters were extremely weak and involve a fundamental misunderstanding of proof and theory).

 

We should be aware of our own shortcomings in areas and modes of arguments and not get drawn out of our depths.  If you have a background in the sciences, by all means it may be your strongest hand to speak on competently, but it would certainly not be in my case.

 

Unless a Christian were to start up a debate with me I would not bother wasting my time. It's about as fruitful as the debate we had recently about that 'fraudulent' election. Once your mind is made up, facts and evidence (or lack thereof) are ignored in favor of emotions.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

Not necessarily.  Many microbes form spores that may appear dead, only to be rejuvenated when environmental conditions are more conducive. 

 

Dammit! You win. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Super Moderator
2 hours ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

Not necessarily.  Many microbes form spores that may appear dead, only to be rejuvenated when environmental conditions are more conducive. 

I have brought many dead microbes back to life using teeny, tiny defibrillator paddles. Or maybe I just inhaled too many spores, IDK.

  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderator
2 hours ago, midniterider said:

 

LoL. I'll grab the popcorn.

 

I guess I dont take the word 'theory' as seriously as others. They do get superseded now and then. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superseded_theories_in_science#:~:text=In science%2C a theory is,support within the scientific community.

 

"Proof" and "Theory" do have colloquial definitions, not just the atheist preferential definition. I believe Edgarcito, a sciencey Christian used the word 'proof' here once ... I bet other scientists use it in that same colloquial way. If someone looks into the microscope and sees dead microbes, that's proof they're dead, right? 

 

I'm not so iffy on proof. Yes we know that proof is really only found in mathematics, but the colloquial term serves much the same purpose as saying evidence. In other words you have to demonstrate your proposition (Provide proof or evidence)

 

However when they say something is "just a theory" this demonstrates deep ignorance of what scientific theory is. Theory and "guessing, fairy tale, lies" etc are not interchangeable terms like proof and evidence. Yes theories get updated or superseded - but that's because the scientific method is doing it s work! For unchanging ideas may I point to he bible and the Koran? Oh wait that shit changes too. Never mind.

 

2 hours ago, midniterider said:

See what happens when you poke me with a stick? All these silly words come out. Happy New Year, Sir. 

 

Lol. I like having silly convo's at times. Same to you. Cheers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderator
3 hours ago, midniterider said:

 

Unless a Christian were to start up a debate with me I would not bother wasting my time. It's about as fruitful as the debate we had recently about that 'fraudulent' election. Once your mind is made up, facts and evidence (or lack thereof) are ignored in favor of emotions.

 

Yeah, I think going up to a Christian in aggressive argument mode is about as useful as them coming up to me... although they do seem to get converts so there's that. 

 

However, if you have a congenial conversation, on the surface there may not have appeared to be any gain, but quite often things said (or written) percolate in the brain when we are away fro the person/keyboard and this affects our positions subtly. That's how many of us ended up decoverting- because something someone said when we were not open to it started festering away in our minds.

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Super Moderator
5 hours ago, midniterider said:

 

Should atheists use science to argue with Christians....

 

........

 

If you do, dont get into pedantic debates over the use of the words theory and proof. 

Now you're just being anti-Semantic.

  • Haha 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/29/2020 at 5:45 PM, ReducedtoAtoms said:

Christians are extremely stubborn and I'm sure if you were able to convince a Christian God isn't real with science they were probably already skeptical. 

 

I think atheists should argue with a more supernatural/spiritual  perspective. That's only if you're like me, and are convinced aliens are real, ghosts, folklore etc. (I believe in this stuff to a certain extent) Once I got into learning about supernatural/spiritual crap it made sense to all the 'miracles' that occur. That these miracles are universal. And that I can prove that these miracles are universal. 

 

I'm not a spiritual person, not a witch either I just find that stuff interesting. 

 

Perhaps a different approach might be better, RtA?

 

Why not get the Christians to tell what parts of their lives are NOT totally reliant on what science does for them?

 

Unless they live like John the Baptist and survive in the wilderness on locusts and honey, you'll find that they depend on science upon for almost everything they do.

 

Thank you,

 

Walter.

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Unless the person on the Christian side of the argument is already well-versed in science and willing to follow evidence wherever it leads, it's an uphill battle and usually a battle not worth waging.  Misunderstanding or outright denial of modern-day scientific principles is the usual response I've gotten, to the point where I am no longer providing a free science education to believers.  They have to do their own homework.

 

Rather than the supernatural or the scientific, I prefer to debate them on ethics -- both from a believer's and a deity's POV.  It tends towards subjectivity, but at the end of it all there's little doubt in anyone's mind why I object to their belief system.  Concepts like eternal punishment, substitutionary atonement and Original Sin are foundational to my rejection of Christianity.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.