The Most Crucial Flaws Of Christianity And Atheism

[Misunderstood]

If there were no god? Theists would not exist either... wait....

See how your "logic" is flawed? No? Well... you tried...

Atheists can all be proven wrong in one easy step: Produce one (1) god.

That's it! Can you do it? No?

Hmmmmmmmm..................

If God created everything, I agree if there was no God there would be no atheists, Christians or anything as it would not have been created. I thought that went without saying.

But, also without a concept of God; if we were never told nor ever even thought of God in anyone's mind, or thoughts there would not be a concept of God whether he exits or not.

We would all be here, but since there is no thought of God there would not be any atheists. How can an Atheist say he does not believe in God if the concept does not exist? No concept of God, no atheists. Maybe he could say I am an atheist because I do not believe in something, I just don't know what it is!

Are you saying if I could prove that one god exits you would not be an atheist? There are many gods and I feel I can prove many if we use the dictionary's definition of a god.

 

[dfnj]

Christians and atheists, what do you see as the most crucial flaw in each other's position?

I'm not sure flaw is the right word. I would have said, "what is the most distinct feature of the belief system what is it's defining character."

Most crucial flaw in Christianity? Being disconnected from or not be able to trust your own inner authority.

Most crucial flaw in Atheism? Having the delusion you are more intelligent or the delusion that your way of thinking is superior compared to the way other people who do not share your way of thinking are looking at the World.

Achieving a state of having humility about one's own beliefs means something deeply profound in my opinion.

 

[Skwim]

I'm not sure flaw is the right word.

It's exactly the right word.

I would have said, "what is the most distinct feature of the belief system what is it's defining character."

Then go ahead. Make your thread.

Most crucial flaw in Atheism? Having the delusion you are more intelligent or the delusion that your way of thinking is superior compared to the way other people who do not share your way of thinking are looking at the World.

Boy! If that isn't a telling answer.

.

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

If God created everything, I agree if there was no God there would be no atheists, Christians or anything as it would not have been created. I thought that went without saying.

But, also without a concept of God; if we were never told nor ever even thought of God in anyone's mind, or thoughts there would not be a concept of God whether he exits or not.

We would all be here, but since there is no thought of God there would not be any atheists. How can an Atheist say he does not believe in God if the concept does not exist? No concept of God, no atheists. Maybe he could say I am an atheist because I do not believe in something, I just don't know what it is!.

Atheists would still exist, even if humans had never invented the god-meme.

It's just that we'd be calling them "humans", as there would not be a need to identify a stance for a concept that hadn't been created in the first place.

Are you saying if I could prove that one god exits you would not be an atheist? There are many gods and I feel I can prove many if we use the dictionary's definition of a god.

Absolutely! If you could prove a god exists, using actual evidence (and not hearsay, or friend-of-a-friend silliness), then I'd have to admit this proven god was real.

So have a go, if you like. Of course-- you're going to need to define what you mean by "god" to a high degree of accuracy.

This is because the whole concept is so ludicrous? It will absolutely require a ludicrous quantity of facts to back it up.

Not unlike someone claiming they have a flying unicorn, or tiny gnomes living in their garden. Or Santa Claus, for that matter.

 

[rstrats]

Skwim,
re: "Why not?"

I don't know. But in my experience it's just the way it is. As I said, I've never been able to consciously choose any of my beliefs, nor has anyone that I have asked to demonstrate such an ability done so.

 

[viole]

Christians and atheists, what do you see as the most crucial flaw in each other's position?
And don't be shy about it, but

BE NICE
​

.​

Well, I think the major flaw of. Christianity is total lack of evidence to be even remotely true.

And i think atheism is not liked in the same way people do not like people who tell in advance how an interesting story is going to end.

Ciao

- viole

 

[Unveiled Artist]

One challenge of atheist is this thread. While talking about the concept of god is fine, but "who" are you referring to when you talk about what god does and says?

Misapplication of ones rejections (using god to refer to rejections of christian claims) kinda makes atheism look more about what atheist dont like about christians rather than that atheism is just without belief of theism (poly theism and monotheism)

The definitions are off by context therefore theist judge others by the wront definitions.
So, rightly so, they feel atheists reject god. If atheists are more focused on christian behavior and not theism itself, who can blame them.

 

[GoodbyeDave]

And that's why the burden of proof always lies with the party making the positive assertion. If you said that winged, polka dot unicorns don't exist, a negative assertion, would you feel you have an obligation or responsibility to "prove" your position?.

Leaving out the wings and polka-dots, I wouldn't be so stupid as to assert that unicorns don't exist. Can you really guarentee that there isn't a planet somewhere in the universe containing animals that would prompt human explorers to exclaim "Look, unicorns!"

 

[Dell]

Christians and atheists, what do you see as the most crucial flaw in each other's position?.

Christianity: blind faith, the inability to comprehend physical reality and science. Most refuse to study any other external sources that aren't biased to Biblical text. Christian's also seem more hostile in debates with atheist.

Atheist: pacifism and disunity. Atheist seem to not want any social involvement or waste time in debate. Very few atheist organize events compared to religous events because they have no drive or passion like Christians.

 

[Augustus]

Yeah, psychologically it isn't at all attractive, and can even be quite distasteful. In fact, a lot people can't bear to think of such a thing and flee to the refuge and comfort of religion. To each his own.

I find the need for many fellow atheists to frequently blow their own trumpet in celebration of their intellectual courage to be quite comical.

Most atheists also flee to a comforting ideology grounded in myth, be it Secular Humanism or whatever. Not that this is a bad thing, in fact it is close to essential for psychological well-being.

As to the OP, the biggest flaw in atheism is that it doesn't provide anything which helps us make meaning from the world, and attempts to construct meaning in a godless world have been a very mixed bag to say the least.

The biggest flaw in Christianity is that monotheism seems to encourage some people towards fanaticism, and can create a concept of thought crime defined by an externally mandated orthodoxy of belief.

 

[stvdv]

Christians and atheists, what do you see as the most crucial flaw in each other's position?

Christians: Judging others
Atheists: Judging others
BE NICE
Judge not

 

[Misunderstood]

Atheists would still exist, even if humans had never invented the god-meme.

It's just that we'd be calling them "humans", as there would not be a need to identify a stance for a concept that hadn't been created in the first place.



Absolutely! If you could prove a god exists, using actual evidence (and not hearsay, or friend-of-a-friend silliness), then I'd have to admit this proven god was real.

So have a go, if you like. Of course-- you're going to need to define what you mean by "god" to a high degree of accuracy.

This is because the whole concept is so ludicrous? It will absolutely require a ludicrous quantity of facts to back it up.

Not unlike someone claiming they have a flying unicorn, or tiny gnomes living in their garden. Or Santa Claus, for that matter.

I will make a response here on proving a god. This will be my last post to this thread on this topic as I feel we are going way off topic to the OP. If you or someone else wants to start a new thread I will join you there when I get time, if you reply to this thread and mention the new thread as I will get a notice. I do not want to start a new thread as I have never started one myself and do not feel comfortable doing so, especially for a first time.

As I said earlier using the dictionary's definition, not mine as I feel it is best to use a universally accepted definition; there are many gods.

Are you saying if I could prove that one god exits you would not be an atheist? There are many gods and I feel I can prove many if we use the dictionary's definition of a god.

I do not plan on converting you away from atheism with this, as what I said was a bit of a trap, I guess I was just trying to have a bit of fun. Sorry if that was offensive.

My point is that the definition states that a person can be a god. Like a sports god on the order of Michael Jordan the basketball player. When someones talents exceed what a normal person is capable of they are sometimes referred to as a god. That includes sports, political leaders, or any other field where a person exhibits extraordinary prowess. I think I could show many people who are considered this by some people, and I feel I can prove they exist.

Objects can also be considered a god, like drugs, alcohol, money and other objects that a person has given their life over to. The object has become so important in their life it take them over usually to their detriment, causing the lose of family, friends and money (except in the case where money is their god).

Other people do not consider god to be an actual entity but the collective consciousness and thoughts of all people. I feel that this forum could be used to prove this. Now is there a collective link to those thoughts?

Then we have the goddess of nature, or mother earth. Nature gives us all we need and will supply those needs as long as we protect and work together to protect her, if not she will withhold her abundance. I think that is pretty much all science does is to prove this. So to deny that would be to deny science.

Those are pretty simple explanations of some gods, but I feel they can be proven to some extent, and I feel even atheists would agree the dictionary's definition of some gods can be proven. They would more likely argue that the definition is wrong and the gods I mention are not gods.

This leads me to believe that atheists can believe in a god they just don't believe in one God, a God of Creation.

Anyway, that is my take. And there is much more that can be said but that is my basic thoughts on this.

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

I will make a response here on proving a god. This will be my last post to this thread on this topic as I feel we are going way off topic to the OP. If you or someone else wants to start a new thread I will join you there when I get time, if you reply to this thread and mention the new thread as I will get a notice. I do not want to start a new thread as I have never started one myself and do not feel comfortable doing so, especially for a first time.

As I said earlier using the dictionary's definition, not mine as I feel it is best to use a universally accepted definition; there are many gods.


I do not plan on converting you away from atheism with this, as what I said was a bit of a trap, I guess I was just trying to have a bit of fun. Sorry if that was offensive.

My point is that the definition states that a person can be a god. Like a sports god on the order of Michael Jordan the basketball player. When someones talents exceed what a normal person is capable of they are sometimes referred to as a god. That includes sports, political leaders, or any other field where a person exhibits extraordinary prowess. I think I could show many people who are considered this by some people, and I feel I can prove they exist.

Objects can also be considered a god, like drugs, alcohol, money and other objects that a person has given their life over to. The object has become so important in their life it take them over usually to their detriment, causing the lose of family, friends and money (except in the case where money is their god).

Other people do not consider god to be an actual entity but the collective consciousness and thoughts of all people. I feel that this forum could be used to prove this. Now is there a collective link to those thoughts?

Then we have the goddess of nature, or mother earth. Nature gives us all we need and will supply those needs as long as we protect and work together to protect her, if not she will withhold her abundance. I think that is pretty much all science does is to prove this. So to deny that would be to deny science.

Those are pretty simple explanations of some gods, but I feel they can be proven to some extent, and I feel even atheists would agree the dictionary's definition of some gods can be proven. They would more likely argue that the definition is wrong and the gods I mention are not gods.

This leads me to believe that atheists can believe in a god they just don't believe in one God, a God of Creation.

Anyway, that is my take. And there is much more that can be said but that is my basic thoughts on this.

Sure! If you re-define "god" into not-god? Then yeah, why not?

The sum of your argument hinges on re-defining the term "god", doesn't it?

 

[paarsurrey]

Christians and atheists, what do you see as the most crucial flaw in each other's position?
And don't be shy about it, but

BE NICE
​

.​

Pauline Christianity has one set of flaws and Atheism people have other set of flaws. Both being man-made has to have errors, "to err is human". Right, please?

Regards

 

[Skwim]

Pauline Christianity has one set of flaws and Atheism people have other set of flaws. Both being man-made has to have errors, "to err is human". Right, please?

Regards

Well, don't leave out god. He's made his share as well.

.

 

[paarsurrey]

Well, don't leave out god. He's made his share as well.

.

It is off-topic. Right, please?

G-d is without blemish.
Regards

 

[Skwim]

It is off-topic. Right, please?

Only in the sense that you didn't mention god. But when you said "to err is human" I took it to mean that non-humans, such as god, couldn't err, in effect raising the topic of god and erring.

G-d is without blemish.
Regards

Only if one considers that making mistakes isn't a blemish.

.

 

[lukethethird]

Christians and atheists, what do you see as the most crucial flaw in each other's position?

.​

As a Christian it's the constant, on going, never ending persecution, and to atheists defining atheism, get over yourselves already.

 

[Skwim]

As a Christian it's the constant, on going, never ending persecution, and to atheists defining atheism, get over yourselves already.

Perhaps they do it because so many don't understand what atheism is.

.