World's first Atheist TV Channel

  • Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.

    If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!

    To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
A

AgeofKnowledge

Guest
#2
It is ironic for sure and ultimately self-defeating for society and yes I can defend this statement.
 
S

Sirk

Guest
#3
atheism-is-wonderful1.jpg Atheists are just silly little creatures.
 

KJV1611

Senior Member
Nov 23, 2013
11,271
738
113
#4

penknight

Senior Member
Jan 6, 2014
808
26
28
#5
It's amazing that in spite of all the knowledge we have, mankind can still be overwhelming dumb.
 
F

Fishbait

Guest
#6
"Atheists are increasingly becoming more active and intentional in preaching their religion of godlessness. I’ve always found it fascinating how they think their purpose is to impose their message that there is no purpose onto people!"

“World’s First Atheist TV Channel” | Around the World with Ken Ham
If the Bible is correct then we have to have "Atheist TV Channels" and media contempt against God. If not then we wait in vain for His return.

"For the coming of the Son of Man will be just like the days of Noah..." Matthew 24:37

How was it in the days of Noah?

According to Genesis 6:5, God saw that the wickedness of man was great upon the earth. We hate to contemplate it but does wickedness run rampant today throughout the earth? As we look upon God’s creation and the moral fiber of the people who inhabit this earth, can we honestly say that we must please God?
 
Feb 16, 2014
903
2
0
#7
View attachment 85060 Atheists are just silly little creatures.
That's not what atheism is at all. Atheism simply refers to a person who lacks belief in any gods. Atheists, like theists, hold many differing philosophies.

Also, theism and atheism are not religions, they're descriptions.

Instead of making assumptions about atheists and what we believe, why don't you actually listen to what we say? You don't have to believe us, but it would be nice for you to at least know what we really think.

Allow me to utterly destroy Ken Ham's completely asinine statements.

I’ve always found it fascinating how they think their purpose is to impose their message that there is no purpose onto people!
This is not the purpose of atheists or outspoken atheist skeptics. Atheists who speak out against God do so because they're concerned with spreading what they feel is true. And what atheists feel is true is that belief in God is illogical. Ken Ham is attacking a straw man.

Well, this new TV channel highlights the growing intolerance towards Christianity in particular—and other religions, with the exception of their own.
Telling people they're wrong is not intolerance. This would be like complaining how intolerant Christian networks are when they talk about how wrong atheists are.

It is incredible that atheists spend so much time, effort, and money arguing against Someone that they don’t even believe exists! Where are all their books, websites, and magazines that argue against the mythical Easter Bunny? This is because they do know God exists but they are suppressing the truth in unrighteousness (Romans 1:18).
The reason atheists speak out against Christianity is because people genuinely believe in God. People genuinely model their actions according to those beliefs. It effects society.

None of us here believe in Voltron, and none of us waste our time debating Voltron's existence. But what if people actually did believe in Voltron? What if 40-60% of Americans not only believed in Voltron, but only voted for politicians who believed in Voltron as well? What if these Voltron worshipers wanted to teach science classes that Voltron destroyed all the dinosaurs because they were plotting to destroy the Earth? Would you, as Christians, keep your mouths closed? Surely, I would hope both atheists and Christians would work together to debunk the myth that is Voltron.

Many people don't accept global warming, yet they spend all their time talking about how global warming is a myth. Does this mean they actually do believe global warming is real? No. The reason they speak out against global warming is because the acceptance of global warming has an impact on society.

Lastly, Ken Ham sure does spend a lot of time talking about how illogical atheism is. If he believes in God, why does he waste so much time and energy talking about atheism? He must therefore be an atheist! At least, that's true according to his own asinine logic.

And why do atheists care so much about proclaiming their message? Atheism offers no hope and is ultimately a totally purposeless religion. If you die, that’s all there is, so why do atheists push so hard to preach their message of hopelessness? Why does it matter to them what anyone believes? It’s because they have the knowledge of God stamped on their hearts but are living in rebellion against their Creator (Romans 1:18; 3:10, 24–25).
Actually, atheists speak out against religion because they are concerned with spreading what they feel is true. The truth, in this sense, being the idea that there's no logical justification for believing in God. Atheists aren't trying to spread an idea of hopelessness. In fact, many outspoken atheists are very concerned about the well being of others! They look for ways to better our lives while we're living and to better the lives of future generations.

Again, Ken Ham is lying.

Even if atheists are wrong, is it okay to lie about them?
 

T_Laurich

Senior Member
Mar 24, 2013
3,206
78
48
25
#8
That's not what atheism is at all. Atheism simply refers to a person who lacks belief in any gods. Atheists, like theists, hold many differing philosophies.

Also, theism and atheism are not religions, they're descriptions.

Instead of making assumptions about atheists and what we believe, why don't you actually listen to what we say? You don't have to believe us, but it would be nice for you to at least know what we really think.

Allow me to utterly destroy Ken Ham's completely asinine statements.



1.) This is not the purpose of atheists or outspoken atheist skeptics. Atheists who speak out against God do so because they're concerned with spreading what they feel is true. And what atheists feel is true is that belief in God is illogical. Ken Ham is attacking a straw man.



2.)Telling people they're wrong is not intolerance. This would be like complaining how intolerant Christian networks are when they talk about how wrong atheists are.



3a.)The reason atheists speak out against Christianity is because people genuinely believe in God. People genuinely model their actions according to those beliefs. It effects society.

3b.)None of us here believe in Voltron, and none of us waste our time debating Voltron's existence. But what if people actually did believe in Voltron? What if 40-60% of Americans not only believed in Voltron, but only voted for politicians who believed in Voltron as well? What if these Voltron worshipers wanted to teach science classes that Voltron destroyed all the dinosaurs because they were plotting to destroy the Earth? Would you, as Christians, keep your mouths closed? Surely, I would hope both atheists and Christians would work together to debunk the myth that is Voltron.

3c.)Many people don't accept global warming, yet they spend all their time talking about how global warming is a myth. Does this mean they actually do believe global warming is real? No. The reason they speak out against global warming is because the acceptance of global warming has an impact on society.

3d./3e.)Lastly, Ken Ham sure does spend a lot of time talking about how illogical atheism is. If he believes in God, why does he waste so much time and energy talking about atheism? He must therefore be an atheist! At least, that's true according to his own asinine logic.



4.)Actually, atheists speak out against religion because they are concerned with spreading what they feel is true. The truth, in this sense, being the idea that there's no logical justification for believing in God. 5.) Atheists aren't trying to spread an idea of hopelessness. In fact, many outspoken atheists are very concerned about the well being of others! 5a.) They look for ways to better our lives while we're living and to better the lives of future generations.

Again, Ken Ham is lying.

Even if atheists are wrong, is it okay to lie about them?

I have numbered your quote into my responses. Ken Hams quotes are in blue, yours are in green, mine are in black. I hope you read what I have to say and respond because I believe there are some explanations from you that we are entitled too, and I honestly would love to hear what you have to say about my rebuttal.

1.) Atheists are increasingly becoming more active and intentional in preaching their religion of godlessness. I’ve always found it fascinating how they think their purpose is to impose their message that there is no purpose onto people!
This is not the purpose of atheists or outspoken atheist skeptics. Atheists who speak out against God do so because they're concerned with spreading what they feel is true. And what atheists feel is true is that belief in God is illogical. Ken Ham is attacking a straw man.


I agree that many atheists do not view their "purpose in life" is to disprove God. But, I believe you miss the humor in the statement and sadly I also believe you make the straw man and not Ken Ham. Ken Ham was addressing the core paradigm of atheism- the lack of purpose. Now you can argue that purpose comes from within yourself. Such as: I want a car, so I will get a job and then be able to get a car. But you have to realize that there is not ultimate purpose for you even existing. Ken Ham was addressing this issue, he was not addressing why atheists can be outspoken, but he was addressing the core paradigm of atheism. So to attack him with the premise of why atheists are outspoken is a non-sequitur.



2.) Their newest preaching endeavor is an atheist-only TV channel launching today—as if we didn’t have enough atheistic TV programming already. Well, this new TV channel highlights the growing intolerance towards Christianity in particular—and other religions, with the exception of their own. The new channel brags of having “superstition-free programming,” which implies that religion is just silly superstition but atheism is rational and logical.
Telling people they're wrong is not intolerance. This would be like complaining how intolerant Christian networks are when they talk about how wrong atheists are.

I could whole heatedly agree with your statement, however; you do not address the full quote where Ken Ham points out their "intolerance of superstition". If you could explain how bragging about having superstition-free programming is not intolerance I am all ears. But I would appreciate if you did not use a Red Herring to trick people into thinking that if they call this channel intolerant that makes Christian networks intolerant as well... For that is a illogical fallacy when you use the quote in full context.



Note: all of 3 will be addressing the same Ken Ham quote in 3 but multiple segments of your full quote in your original response. So 3a, 3b, 3c will all be about one topic but broken up to better organize my rebuttal.
3.)
It is incredible that atheists spend so much time, effort, and money arguing against Someone that they don’t even believe exists! Where are all their books, websites, and magazines that argue against the mythical Easter Bunny? This is because they do know God exists but they are suppressing the truth in unrighteousness(Romans 1:18).
3a.)The reason atheists speak out against Christianity is because people genuinely believe in God. People genuinely model their actions according to those beliefs. It effects society.

I agree that a society is modeled after and accordingly with the beliefs of the people. But instead of using this as a defense against theism, can you provide any one case where a atheistic society has survived over 100 years. What I am trying to show you is, that your efforts to better this society has historically only brought the downfall of a society. Where as theism historically has society's living centuries upon centuries... So how can your atheistic ideals help a society when it has only been proven to hurt it.

3b.)None of us here believe in Voltron, and none of us waste our time debating Voltron's existence. But what if people actually did believe in Voltron? What if 40-60% of Americans not only believed in Voltron, but only voted for politicians who believed in Voltron as well? What if these Voltron worshipers wanted to teach science classes that Voltron destroyed all the dinosaurs because they were plotting to destroy the Earth? Would you, as Christians, keep your mouths closed? Surely, I would hope both atheists and Christians would work together to debunk the myth that is Voltron.

This is an illogical fallacy, it is very similar to the genetic fallacy used and popularized by Richard Dawkins. It is also a red herring fallacy. To compare the Biblical God to voltron is not logical unless you are needing to 'levy' your position. The reason being is: the two characters you are comparing. In one hand you have a man made idea voltron. Which is proven to not exist, be worthless, and man made. In the other hand you have the Biblical God which does not equate to any of those three paradigms...It has never been proven to be any of the qualities of voltron but you have taken the liberty to assume it does have those qualities to make an analogy. If you can show that the Biblical God is any one of those three, then you will honestly go down in the history books. But what you are doing is very close to the second quote that I rebutted too. You are trying to show a similarity in a thing that can not be argued against (voltron being a horrid belief system) and a thing that has been defended and has been unpenetrated since the dawn of time (the Bible). If you can show me even one instance where it has the characteristics of voltron then I will applaud you.


3c.)Many people don't accept global warming, yet they spend all their time talking about how global warming is a myth. Does this mean they actually do believe global warming is real? No. The reason they speak out against global warming is because the acceptance of global warming has an impact on society.

I agree with your statement on society, but I will refer back to 3a and ask you to prove atheism is better for a society than theism. For the issue you are addressing in this case is not if theism is correct or not. But rather: what is better for a society.

3d.)Lastly, Ken Ham sure does spend a lot of time talking about how illogical atheism is. If he believes in God, why does he waste so much time and energy talking about atheism? He must therefore be an atheist! At least, that's true according to his own asinine logic.

The reasoning for him talking about athiesm is the reason you made points 3a and 3c... He believes it will better society, but more importantly he also believes that without accepting Christ a person will be dammed to hell. So it is out of his heart and good nature to refute atheism in a public setting.

3e.)
Lastly, Ken Ham sure does spend a lot of time talking about how illogical atheism is. If he believes in God, why does he waste so much time and energy talking about atheism? He must therefore be an atheist! At least, that's true according to his own asinine logic.

I hope you forgive me to breaking this into two parts, but I think you should explain this... You said that Ken Ham believes in God. Then you ask 'rhetorically' why he wastes so much time and energy talking about atheism. Then directly come to the conclusion that this makes him an atheist.. Can I ask for your reasoning on this because I believe you made a non sequitur.

4.)
And why do atheists care so much about proclaiming their message? Atheism offers no hope and is ultimately a totally purposeless religion. If you die, that’s all there is, so why do atheists push so hard to preach their message of hopelessness? Why does it matter to them what anyone believes? It’s because they have the knowledge of God stamped on their hearts but are living in rebellion against their Creator (Romans 1:18; 3:10, 24–25).
Actually, atheists speak out against religion because they are concerned with spreading what they feel is true. The truth, in this sense, being the idea that there's no logical justification for believing in God.

So at this point I would like to address 'truth'. Can you provide any evidence that there no is logical justification for believing in God. You can attack this either of two ways, Philosophically or Biblically. Either way I am fine with, I would just like to make sure we do not have another "voltron fallacy".

5.)
Atheists aren't trying to spread an idea of hopelessness. In fact, many outspoken atheists are very concerned about the well being of others! They look for ways to better our lives while we're living and to better the lives of future generations.Again, Ken Ham is lying.
Even if atheists are wrong, is it okay to lie about them?

The reason I split apart your last sentence is because you reference the article as a whole and I feel like this is your conclusion. So I will address accordingly.

First off you make a red herring fallacy. Ken Ham clearly stated that the belief in atheism offers no hope. Yet your retort says that atheists care about others. This is a red herring. You did not address the comment at hand which was explaining how atheism offers no hope and is ultimately a purposeless religion. But you instead said that atheists do give hope and care about others...

Let me address this in an analogy. If a man believes in a religion that believes you should not kill anyone. But the man goes out and kills another person. Does that now mean that the religion believes that you should or may kill people? The answer is no.

Then how is it: when there is a religion that does not give hope. A person believes in this religion and gives hope to a person. That now means the region gives hope.



5a.)
They look for ways to better our lives while we're living and to better the lives of future generations.

Can I ask one question about this sentence? Why was this not in a response to Ken Hams next paragraph... I am going to pretend that it was: to show you what your quote would have looked like if you decided to use the next paragraph of Ken Ham's article.

Sadly, this new TV channel is not just targeting adults with a hopeless message of godlessness, but they are also trying to indoctrinate children into an atheistic worldview. Isn’t it bad enough that humanistic thinking has lead to over 55 million deaths of aborted children in the U.S. alone, and now the atheistic humanists want to continue their attacks to poison and destroy the minds children who have survived the abortion holocaust. You see, we live in a world that is fiercely battling for the hearts and minds of our kids. And yet, it is a world where those who teach their kids the truth of God’s Word are accused of child abuse!
They[Atheists] look for ways to better our lives while we're living and to better the lives of future generations.

Can you please explain your position... I do believe these future generations are entitled to what your defense is.




I do not believe Ken Ham has lied once during this article. So can you explain these multiple lies... (I understand by addressing my comment and defending your own you will be doing this)
 
Last edited:
D

didymos

Guest
#9
I'm not worried about any 'atheist tv channels,' I AM worried about the multitude of channels that excel in indifference to Jesus Christ and where ads are all that matter.
 

blue_ladybug

Senior Member
Feb 21, 2014
70,059
8,576
113
#10
​FIRST atheist TV channel? I thought they were ALL atheist channels! LOL! :)
 
Feb 16, 2014
903
2
0
#11
I agree that many atheists do not view their "purpose in life" is to disprove God. But, I believe you miss the humor in the statement and sadly I also believe you make the straw man and not Ken Ham. Ken Ham was addressing the core paradigm of atheism- the lack of purpose.
Ken Ham said: "I’ve always found it fascinating how they think their purpose is to impose their message that there is no purpose onto people!"

I'm not attacking a strawman. Ken Ham is clearly stating that the atheist message is that there is no purpose. He is misrepresenting the atheist position.

Ken Ham was addressing the core paradigm of atheism- the lack of purpose. Now you can argue that purpose comes from within yourself. Such as: I want a car, so I will get a job and then be able to get a car. But you have to realize that there is not ultimate purpose for you even existing. Ken Ham was addressing this issue, he was not addressing why atheists can be outspoken, but he was addressing the core paradigm of atheism. So to attack him with the premise of why atheists are outspoken is a non-sequitur.
He said purposelessness is the atheist message. That'e precisely how he worded it. That is not the atheist message. And if he believes atheism indirectly refers to a purposeless life, then he would not have referred to it as "their message".

Even if I am wrong and I did misinterpret what Ken Ham said, it's not a non-sequitur argument. A non-sequitur argument is a conclusion that does not follow the premise. My conclusion did follow the premise. If I was wrong about what Ken Ham meant, then it would be my premise that's wrong, not the logic behind the argument itself.

I could whole heatedly agree with your statement, however; you do not address the full quote where Ken Ham points out their "intolerance of superstition". If you could explain how bragging about having superstition-free programming is not intolerance I am all ears. But I would appreciate if you did not use a Red Herring to trick people into thinking that if they call this channel intolerant that makes Christian networks intolerant as well... For that is a illogical fallacy when you use the quote in full context.
Actually, there is no logical fallacy with comparing this new network with Christian networks. If you consider it intolerant for atheists not to allow Christians on their stations, then you must also consider it intolerant for Christians not to allow atheists on their stations. It may come off as a red herring, but I bring this up so there's no confusion that if you want to be consistent and call this new atheist network intolerant, you must also consider Christian networks intolerant as well.

It's not as if this channel is trying to prohibit Christians from having their own opinions in general. It's an atheist channel, so they're going to upload what they feel is "superstitious-free" content. This wording is quite funny and since atheists tend to consider Christianity to be superstitious, the content isn't really superstitious-free if they're talking about superstitions. Of course, what they're referring to is their own positions as being superstitious-free, not the topic as a whole.

I agree that a society is modeled after and accordingly with the beliefs of the people. But instead of using this as a defense against theism, can you provide any one case where a atheistic society has survived over 100 years.
Talk about a red herring.

I had a lengthy response typed out, but I don't want to derail this conversation. Therefore I deleted it as a means of keeping relevant. I am not trying to argue that atheism is right. I am arguing that the reason atheists talk about God not being real IS NOT because we secretly believe in God, but because we feel religion can have a negative impact on society. We also believe religion is man made and that we should always strive to tell what we feel is true (though, I didn't mention this originally).

Are atheists right? Is atheism logical? It doesn't matter. All that matters is that you understand that Ken Ham is wrong to imply that a person wouldn't waste their time arguing against something they feel isn't true unless they actually believe in that very thing. That's just stupid.

What I am trying to show you is, that your efforts to better this society has historically only brought the downfall of a society. Where as theism historically has society's living centuries upon centuries... So how can your atheistic ideals help a society when it has only been proven to hurt it.
Again, your question is a strawman because I was never trying to argue that atheist morals are better than theistic ones.

This is an illogical fallacy, it is very similar to the genetic fallacy used and popularized by Richard Dawkins. It is also a red herring fallacy.
It is none of the above. The issue is, you don't understand the purpose behind analogies.

To compare the Biblical God to voltron is not logical unless you are needing to 'levy' your position. The reason being is: the two characters you are comparing. In one hand you have a man made idea voltron. Which is proven to not exist, be worthless, and man made. In the other hand you have the Biblical God which does not equate to any of those three paradigms...
Analogies are used to help others better understand your point of view. They are not, in themselves, arguments.

You claim that I can't compare God to Voltron because of some very important differences between the two. The differences you mention are IRRELEVANT to the analogy. I'm not comparing God to Voltron. I'm comparing the circumstances.

The reason I use Voltron in the analogy is because I know we both don't believe in it. We both know Voltron is made up.

You're the one presenting the strawman because you're ignoring the very reason why I used the analogy in the first place!

In short: "If you can show me even one instance where it has the characteristics of voltron then I will applaud you."

The ONLY similarity between the two that matters is that we don't believe in it. That's because it's the lack of belief in something that I'm addressing. Ken Ham states that if you don't believe in God, why try to disprove God? Well, if you don't believe in Voltron, why try to disprove Voltron?

But hey! Ken Ham compared God to the Easter Bunny! He said that atheists don't try to disprove the Easter Bunny because they don't believe in the Easter Bunny. Does this mean Ken Ham is comparing the Easter Bunny to God? Of course not!

The point I was making, the point you missed, is that the reason anyone talks against something they don't believe in is because other people DO believe those things, because other people ARE influenced by those things. If people believed in Voltron and their actions were influenced by this belief, we would talk about how Voltron isn't real. Same with the Easter Bunny! If people actually believed the Easter Bunny was real and tried to make laws based on the idea of the Easter Bunny being real, we would talk about how the Easter Bunny isn't real.

I don't know how I can be any more clear than that. Your trying so hard to prove me wrong that you're completely ignoring the context of what I said! Shame.

I agree with your statement on society, but I will refer back to 3a and ask you to prove atheism is better for a society than theism. For the issue you are addressing in this case is not if theism is correct or not. But rather: what is better for a society.


Earlier, I called this a red herring. The reason it's a red herring is because we aren't discussing whether the atheist channel is right or wrong. We aren't discussing whether atheist morality is better than theist morality.

You keep trying to change the subject.

The reasoning for him talking about athiesm is the reason you made points 3a and 3c... He believes it will better society, but more importantly he also believes that without accepting Christ a person will be dammed to hell. So it is out of his heart and good nature to refute atheism in a public setting.


My original response was: "Lastly, Ken Ham sure does spend a lot of time talking about how illogical atheism is. If he believes in God, why does he waste so much time and energy talking about atheism? He must therefore be an atheist! At least, that's true according to his own asinine logic."

What you said is true. The reason Ken Ham talks against atheism is because he feels it's wrong and that it has an impact on society. My statement was to show the hypocrisy in his arguments.

So at this point I would like to address 'truth'. Can you provide any evidence that there no is logical justification for believing in God. You can attack this either of two ways, Philosophically or Biblically. Either way I am fine with, I would just like to make sure we do not have another "voltron fallacy".


There was no "Voltron" fallacy because I wasn't attempting to disprove the existence of God. In fact, that's not even up for debate.

Ken Ham is misrepresenting the reason atheists speak out. He is misrepresenting the views of atheists. I'm not debating whether atheists are right or whether Christians are wrong, I'm pointing out that Ken ham is misrepresenting atheists. That's why I provided the explanation as to why atheists speak out against God. It's not because we secretly believe in God, but because we sincerely don't believe in God and we wish to spread the truth as we see it.

You want to address "truth". Truth, in this case, refers to that which is in accordance with reality. And I carefully stated verbatim "what they feel is true". I then explained the particular point atheists are trying to make.

I was very careful to make sure everyone understand that this is not to debate the validity or invalidity of atheism - it's to address what atheists actually believe and why they actually debate against the existence of God.

First off you make a red herring fallacy. Ken Ham clearly stated that the belief in atheism offers no hope. Yet your retort says that atheists care about others. This is a red herring. You did not address the comment at hand which was explaining how atheism offers no hope and is ultimately a purposeless religion. But you instead said that atheists do give hope and care about others...


Considering your response and how you provided some massive red herrings, you really don't have much room to speak. Furthermore, everything you considered a red herring or fallacy wasn't either.

I never responded to Ken Ham's arguments against atheists being hopeless. I responded to Ken Ham's claim that atheists believe there is no purpose. All of the things I mentioned are examples of purpose. No, these are not "divine" purposes, but they are purposes none the less. Again, whether or not these purposes really matter isn't up for debate, because I'm talking about what the atheist position actually is, not whether or not it's valid.

Can you please explain your position... I do believe these future generations are entitled to what your defense is.


Actually, atheists tend to teach their children to be open minded and to make their own decisions. Obviously, we do guide the way our children think - it's impossible not to.

Also, abortion isn't an atheistic viewpoint. There are many atheists who are pro-life. Many atheists believe abortion is wrong as soon as there are signs of thought, movement, heartbeat, etc. It's a very gray area.

Lastly, and I repeat, atheists ( the ones who speak against religion) tend look for ways to better our lives and the lives of future generations. Are they right? Again, that's not the point. I'm not debating whether atheists are actually finding ways to better people's lives. All I'm saying is that atheists look for ways to better lives. To blow off and misrepresent their intentions makes it impossible for any future arguments to hold any validity.

 

skipp

Senior Member
Mar 6, 2014
654
7
0
#12
Atheism is a negative, it's a lack of belief. It seems strange to have a channel devoted to not believing in something.
 
A

AgeofKnowledge

Guest
#13
Don't be deceived. Atheists certainly DO believe in something and that's why atheism is classified as a metaphysical worldview like all religions.

There are a GREAT MANY negative consequences of the atheistic worldview but the most serious of them all is the devaluing of human life.


Atheism is a negative, it's a lack of belief. It seems strange to have a channel devoted to not believing in something.
 
Feb 16, 2014
903
2
0
#14
Atheism is a lack of belief in a higher deity or belief that there is no higher deity. Neither one of these are metaphysical beliefs. Do you know what metaphysical is? That's like calling the "off" setting on a T.V. a T.V. station. On the flip side, calling theism a religion is like calling "on" a T.V. station.

There's a huge misunderstanding of what theism and atheism means, and I see this mix up constantly from both sides.

Also, I've noticed atheists are no more likely to find little to no value in life than Christians. Yes, there are a lot of atheists who are okay with abortions. But, there are also a lot of pro-life atheists as well. The problem here isn't that atheists see no value in life, but rather many people don't see fetuses as either life, or as sentient, or as human. It's not the value of life that's questioned, it's what life is.

Once a baby is born and there's absolutely zero debate as to whether that child is human, atheists will value that child's life as much as the average religious person.
 
Last edited:
A

AgeofKnowledge

Guest
#15
Now you're misrepresenting the situation yet again despite having been told many times on this forum that Christianity asserts humanity has an ultimately meaningful, eternal, and enormous inherent worth being made in the very image of creator God (e.g. Imago Dei) possessing body, immortal spirit, and immortal soul destined for spiritual dimensions beyond this material universe which contrasts with the atheistic false assertion that humanity is nothing more than units of temporary complex biological matter trapped on a rocky planet, fueled by a dying sun, in a universe that's space is expanding to the point no biological life will ever be possible again.

DEFINITELY, there IS a completely different measurement in atheism from Christianity of both what life is and the value it has.

As William Provine, a professor in the Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology at Cornell University, stated publicly in 1998:

"Naturalistic evolution has clear consequences that Charles Darwin understood perfectly. 1) No gods worth having exist; 2) no life after death exists; 3) no ultimate foundation for ethics exists; 4) no ultimate meaning in life exists; and 5) human free will is nonexistent” (Provine, 1998)."

^ Reverse that and you have the Christian POV:

The Christian worldview has clear consequences. 1) Creator God exists; 2) Life after death exists; 3) An ultimate foundation for ethics exists; 4) life is both ultimately and eternally meaningful; and 5) human free will exists.

Atheism is devoid of any ultimately meaningful ethic with respect to the human life it posits as brief and transitory contrasting with the enormous eternal value the Christian worldview places on human life (and to a lesser extent nature itself).



Also, I've noticed atheists are no more likely to find little to no value in life than Christians. Yes, there are a lot of atheists who are okay with abortions. But, there are also a lot of pro-life atheists as well. The problem here isn't that atheists see no value in life, but rather many people don't see fetuses as either life, or as sentient, or as human. It's not the value of life that's questioned, it's what life is.

Once a baby is born and there's absolutely zero debate as to whether that child is human, atheists will value that child's life as much as the average religious person.
 

T_Laurich

Senior Member
Mar 24, 2013
3,206
78
48
25
#16
This is in response to: Percepi ​post #11



Ken Ham said: "I’ve always found it fascinating how they think their purpose is to impose their message that there is no purpose onto people!"

I'm not attacking a strawman. Ken Ham is clearly stating that the atheist message is that there is no purpose. He is misrepresenting the atheist position.

So define where purpose comes from. As I stated before you can say purpose is personally driven e.g. finding a way to obtain the car you want. But that does not define the purpose for your existence. Please explain how atheism gives purpose to life. I would love to know how atheism gives purpose. Since your statement revolves around you believing atheism gives purpose... If you cannot prove that atheism gives purpose than how is he making the strawman?


He said purposelessness is the atheist message. That'e precisely how he worded it. That is not the atheist message. And if he believes atheism indirectly refers to a purposeless life, then he would not have referred to it as "their message".
So do you agree with me that Ken Ham did not address why they are outspoken but addressed the message of their belief. Whether yes or no I would love for you to explain the atheistic message.

Even if I am wrong and I did misinterpret what Ken Ham said, it's not a non-sequitur argument. A non-sequitur argument is a conclusion that does not follow the premise. My conclusion did follow the premise. If I was wrong about what Ken Ham meant, then it would be my premise that's wrong, not the logic behind the argument itself.

If you are wrong: you took his words out of context changed the thesis then made a defense against that thesis which is now changed into your paramaters. That means you made a straw man, which I said you did... And a non sequitur.
non se·qui·tur noun
a conclusion or statement that does not logically follow from the previous argument or statement.

This definition fits what you did (if you are wrong). In latin it translates to does not follow.

Actually, there is no logical fallacy with comparing this new network with Christian networks. If you consider it intolerant for atheists not to allow Christians on their stations, then you must also consider it intolerant for Christians not to allow atheists on their stations. It may come off as a red herring, but I bring this up so there's no confusion that if you want to be consistent and call this new atheist network intolerant, you must also consider Christian networks intolerant as well.

It is a logical fallacy and here is why. You said that "telling people they are wrong is not intolerant". Which I can agree with under certain circumstances. But you failed to quote the atheist channel saying "superstition-free programming". This is an attack on theism. But more so shows intolerance of what they have deemed as superstitious television. Here is where the fallacy comes in. The statement that the atheistic channel made was intolerant, no matter what your belief. You then said: Telling people they're wrong is not intolerance. This would be like complaining how intolerant Christian networks are when they talk about how wrong atheists are. That is where your logical fallacy is. You claim that all the channel did was point out that theists are wrong in the belief's. Then you compare it to when Christians say atheists are wrong. But can I ask you something. Does every Christian television program say that atheists are superstitious, and that their show is superstition free? So how can you throw EVERY christian program under the intolerance bus with the atheistic program. I hope you can see your logical fallacy now.


It's not as if this channel is trying to prohibit Christians from having their own opinions in general. It's an atheist channel, so they're going to upload what they feel is "superstitious-free" content. This wording is quite funny and since atheists tend to consider Christianity to be superstitious, the content isn't really superstitious-free if they're talking about superstitions. Of course, what they're referring to is their own positions as being superstitious-free, not the topic as a whole.

I never argued with the paradigm of their thesis like you have with Ken Hams. I can understand the humor in what they have said. My attack was never on their position but more so that you failed to point out their intolerance and then claimed that if they are intolerant then so are Christians.

Talk about a red herring.

Red Herring: something, that is or is intended to be misleading or distracting.
You obviously read the article, yet you quoted one half and left the other only available to someone who read the article because it would have defeated your position. Whether indirectly or directly you have committed a red herring fallacy.

I had a lengthy response typed out, but I don't want to derail this conversation. Therefore I deleted it as a means of keeping relevant. I am not trying to argue that atheism is right. I am arguing that the reason atheists talk about God not being real IS NOT because we secretly believe in God, but because we feel religion can have a negative impact on society. We also believe religion is man made and that we should always strive to tell what we feel is true (though, I didn't mention this originally).


This is why I asked for you to provide examples on societies who were atheistic and societies who were theistic. I understand your thesis. Never once have I asked for you to prove your atheism, but you keep insinuating that I am.


Are atheists right? Is atheism logical? It doesn't matter. All that matters is that you understand that Ken Ham is wrong to imply that a person wouldn't waste their time arguing against something they feel isn't true unless they actually believe in that very thing. That's just stupid.

I don't know if you have read the bible or not. But it states that every one knows the glory of God... So this is not Ken Ham but God stating that you know He is real.
Since you are an atheist you do not take the bible literally and believe its a superstition. Which is fine so here is a article and study from Harvard stating that everyone is born with the belief in God. Children are born believers in God, academic claims - Telegraph


Again, your question is a strawman because I was never trying to argue that atheist morals are better than theistic ones.
I have never argued on morals nor did I say that you were. I am addressing what you very clearly restated not to many sentences ago: we feel religion can have a negative impact on society.This is what I am asking you to prove. Prove that Christianity hurts a society.


It is none of the above. The issue is, you don't understand the purpose behind analogies.

"The main purpose of an analogy is to bring out the meaning of a concept or idea in such a way that it can be understood with ease."

Analogies are used to help others better understand your point of view. They are not, in themselves, arguments.

I never used my analogy as an argument I stated my argument then used an analogy to clarify my stance.


You claim that I can't compare God to Voltron because of some very important differences between the two. The differences you mention are IRRELEVANT to the analogy. I'm not comparing God to Voltron. I'm comparing the circumstances.

You are comparing a "spaghetti monster" to God. You are using a known man made idea as a comparison to God, this creates the impression that God and the man made idea are on equal ground.


The reason I use Voltron in the analogy is because I know we both don't believe in it. We both know Voltron is made up.

Exactly my point, you stated We both know Voltron is made up. So, you are doing exactly what I have said a logical fallacy. Or Red Herring.


You're the one presenting the strawman because you're ignoring the very reason why I used the analogy in the first place!


Instead of attacking God Himself and proving his existence as 'superstition'. You hide under this analogy like you did with saying that all Christians are intolerant if this atheistic program is intolerant. Your fallacy is there because you have used a provable fact to insinuate that something else is proved, when it has not been.



In short: "If you can show me even one instance where it has the characteristics of voltron then I will applaud you."
The ONLY similarity between the two that matters is that we don't believe in it. That's because it's the lack of belief in something that I'm addressing. Ken Ham states that if you don't believe in God, why try to disprove God? Well, if you don't believe in Voltron, why try to disprove Voltron?


Yes, the only similarity to you that maters is that one. Because it proves your point. Let me give you an example of an analogy, An elephant is like a bus. If talking about weight you would be correct... An elephant weighs a lot just like a bus. However if you are implying that you can get inside, ride around, have a comfy seat, and sight see... You will be incorrect because an elephant is not like a bus in this case. I hope that you see when you use your Voltron analogy to show us how people can be against a superstition you are taking the liberty of assuming that God has been proven a superstition when He has not been. This is why you have committed a fallacy.


But hey! Ken Ham compared God to the Easter Bunny! He said that atheists don't try to disprove the Easter Bunny because they don't believe in the Easter Bunny. Does this mean Ken Ham is comparing the Easter Bunny to God? Of course not!

The reason why this analogy is not a fallacy is because like you many atheists claim to be for truth and to get rid of superstition. In your eyes both God and the Easter Bunny are not real. So he points out that you only attack the superstition that you dislike.


The point I was making, the point you missed, is that the reason anyone talks against something they don't believe in is because other people DO believe those things, because other people ARE influenced by those things. If people believed in Voltron and their actions were influenced by this belief, we would talk about how Voltron isn't real. Same with the Easter Bunny! If people actually believed the Easter Bunny was real and tried to make laws based on the idea of the Easter Bunny being real, we would talk about how the Easter Bunny isn't real.
Because they have been PROVEN wrong. Your analogy on the easter bunny compared to voltron is correct due to both have been PROVEN wrong. But your indirect attack on God with this analogy is a fallacy because God has not been proven wrong.


I don't know how I can be any more clear than that. Your trying so hard to prove me wrong that you're completely ignoring the context of what I said! Shame.

If you prove God a superstition then you are 100% correct and did not use a fallacy in your voltron analogy. If you do not prove Him wrong, then I am afraid you have committed a fallacy.

Earlier, I called this a red herring. The reason it's a red herring is because we aren't discussing whether the atheist channel is right or wrong. We aren't discussing whether atheist morality is better than theist morality.

You keep trying to change the subject.

I am not changing the subject just covering all the subject matter you have addressed. I never asked you to prove or show morality. Nor did I ask you to prove or show Atheism true. All I asked was for you to show where Atheism improves a society and Theism destroys it.


My original response was: "Lastly, Ken Ham sure does spend a lot of time talking about how illogical atheism is. If he believes in God, why does he waste so much time and energy talking about atheism? He must therefore be an atheist! At least, that's true according to his own asinine logic."

I still have not a clue where this logic comes in to play. So if you could provide me with a quote where Ken Ham uses this logical fallacy.


What you said is true. The reason Ken Ham talks against atheism is because he feels it's wrong and that it has an impact on society. My statement was to show the hypocrisy in his arguments.

No problem, you have an inalienable right to do so. Whether or not he was hypocritical is debatable.


There was no "Voltron" fallacy because I wasn't attempting to disprove the existence of God. In fact, that's not even up for debate.


Whether you mean to commit a fallacy or not you still commit one. If you shoot a man on purpose or accident you still shot him. Sorry but ignorance is not excuse.


Ken Ham is misrepresenting the reason atheists speak out. He is misrepresenting the views of atheists. I'm not debating whether atheists are right or whether Christians are wrong, I'm pointing out that Ken ham is misrepresenting atheists. That's why I provided the explanation as to why atheists speak out against God. It's not because we secretly believe in God, but because we sincerely don't believe in God and we wish to spread the truth as we see it.

You have said multiple times that
atheists speak out against religion because they are concerned with spreading what they feel is true. The truth, in this sense, being the idea that there's no logical justification for believing in God.I asked for you to prove that Christians are wrong because if you can't then I want to know where this 'truth' comes from. Since it is the premise for the reason Atheists 'speak out'. I am only asking for clarification on your position I am not attacking nor changing the subject. (just to make that clear)


You want to address "truth". Truth, in this case, refers to that which is in accordance with reality. And I carefully stated verbatim "what they feel is true". I then explained the particular point atheists are trying to make.

So if Atheism is in accordance to reality Theism is not. You can not have both God and no God in the same equation. Unless you get into string theory :p
So can I ask again, Can you provide evidence for your truth either philosophically or biblically. By disproving my position or proving yours on either grounds.



I was very careful to make sure everyone understand that this is not to debate the validity or invalidity of atheism - it's to address what atheists actually believe and why they actually debate against the existence of God.

Debating the existence of God does either validate your position or nullify it. So I believe if you address that you debate the existence of God you are debating the validity of your belief. If God is real atheism is farce if God is not real Atheism is correct... Debating God has very much to do with the validity of atheism.



Considering your response and how you provided some massive red herrings, you really don't have much room to speak. Furthermore, everything you considered a red herring or fallacy wasn't either.

I believe that I have never used a red herring in our debate. I suggest you reread your comments and then read my more in depth explanations of your fallacies.



I never responded to Ken Ham's arguments against atheists being hopeless. I responded to Ken Ham's claim that atheists believe there is no purpose. All of the things I mentioned are examples of purpose. No, these are not "divine" purposes, but they are purposes none the less. Again, whether or not these purposes really matter isn't up for debate, because I'm talking about what the atheist position actually is, not whether or not it's valid.

The atheist position says there is no God, so how do you get hope, or purpose. Ken Ham was using Hope and Purpose as synonyms in his first 2 sentences. So to say that you have one but not the other is I hate to say this but... A logical fallacy.

So explain how your beleif gives hope... I am not asking for you to prove atheism, but to explain how your belief can give me hope if I were to believe as well.


Actually, atheists tend to teach their children to be open minded and to make their own decisions. Obviously, we do guide the way our children think - it's impossible not to.

It is possible not too... You should research Soviet Russia and their schools. What they were taught and not taught. What was hidden from them, and what they were never allowed to think. I think you would find it very apparent that Atheists can very easily hide information. And (for lack of a better term) brainwash.


Also, abortion isn't an atheistic viewpoint. There are many atheists who are pro-life. Many atheists believe abortion is wrong as soon as there are signs of thought, movement, heartbeat, etc. It's a very gray area.

So explain to me how atheism does not encourage abortion... I am not asking you to prove atheism but explain what the atheism position is.


Lastly, and I repeat, atheists ( the ones who speak against religion) tend look for ways to better our lives and the lives of future generations. Are they right? Again, that's not the point. I'm not debating whether atheists are actually finding ways to better people's lives. All I'm saying is that atheists look for ways to better lives. To blow off and misrepresent their intentions makes it impossible for any future arguments to hold any validity.

Intentions are all fine and dandy, but they do not help at all. If I intended to give you an apple pie but instead accidentally gave you a raspberry pie which you died from because of your severe allergies to raspberry. My intentions were perfect but the outcome was not... Does the persons intentions count?

I hope you realize this is not a fallacy due to the fact you said. I'm not debating whether atheists are actually finding ways to better people's lives. All I'm saying is that atheists look for ways to better lives. So I was not talking about the death nor the pies. but my good willed intentions only. So I was in 100% guidelines and boundaries of your own logic.
 
Feb 16, 2014
903
2
0
#17
Now you're misrepresenting the situation yet again despite having been told many times on this forum that Christianity asserts humanity has an ultimately meaningful, eternal, and enormous inherent worth being made in the very image of creator God...
I'm not debating the merits of Christianity. I'm correcting Ken Ham's lies about what atheism is and what atheists believe.

Atheism is devoid of any ultimately meaningful ethic with respect to the human life it posits as brief and transitory contrasting with the enormous eternal value the Christian worldview places on human life (and to a lesser extent nature itself).
I wish you would actually investigate the situation rather than insinuate it. Instead of looking for as many atheists as you can to talk to and asking them how they value life, you simply assert that without a God, they just don't care because they have no basis. Ask questions and stop assuming.

So define where purpose comes from. As I stated before you can say purpose is personally driven e.g. finding a way to obtain the car you want. But that does not define the purpose for your existence. Please explain how atheism gives purpose to life. I would love to know how atheism gives purpose. Since your statement revolves around you believing atheism gives purpose... If you cannot prove that atheism gives purpose than how is he making the strawman?
Ken Ham is stating that the atheist purpose is to spread the message that there is no purpose to life. This is not the atheist message.

There isn't a universal atheist message, but most atheists will agree that the purpose of life is one that is derived from human experience. There is no divine purpose. You may disagree with this, or you may even find a self derived purpose to be worthless, but this is the message most atheists are spreading - not that there is no purpose.

I don't expect you to agree with this message. I expect you and other Christians to accept that this is generally the atheist position. Many people, such as Ken Ham, tend to argue (and I paraphrase) "Your position doesn't make sense to me, therefore your position must ACTUALLY be this." It's a dishonest tactic and I even see it on this forum from time to time.

So do you agree with me that Ken Ham did not address why they are outspoken but addressed the message of their belief. Whether yes or no I would love for you to explain the atheistic message.
As I said before, there isn't a universal message. There are many reasons why some atheists speak out against Christianity and other religions. I've already gone over what many atheists would consider their generalized message: That there is no valid reason to believe in God. Some will go further to suggest that one can improve their life after giving up their views on what they consider to be an imaginary being.

Again, and I stress, I am not debating whether or not this message is right or wrong. I am explaining that this is the position atheists have. Atheists do not go around saying, "There is no God, your life has no purpose. You're worthless." An atheist might say we're pretty insignificant in the grand scheme of things, but they're comparing our existence to the existence of the universe as a whole. Just because our lives are insignificant compared to the universe doesn't mean we can't value our lives.

You don't have to agree. I just need you to understand that this is what many atheists ACTUALLY argue.

That means you made a straw man, which I said you did... And a non sequitur.
Just a strawman, not a non-sequitur.

It is a logical fallacy and here is why. You said that "telling people they are wrong is not intolerant". Which I can agree with under certain circumstances. But you failed to quote the atheist channel saying "superstition-free programming". This is an attack on theism. But more so shows intolerance of what they have deemed as superstitious television. Here is where the fallacy comes in. The statement that the atheistic channel made was intolerant, no matter what your belief. You then said: Telling people they're wrong is not intolerance. This would be like complaining how intolerant Christian networks are when they talk about how wrong atheists are. That is where your logical fallacy is. You claim that all the channel did was point out that theists are wrong in the belief's. Then you compare it to when Christians say atheists are wrong. But can I ask you something. Does every Christian television program say that atheists are superstitious, and that their show is superstition free? So how can you throw EVERY christian program under the intolerance bus with the atheistic program. I hope you can see your logical fallacy now.
You're moving the goal posts as well as mildly changing my argument.

The atheist station, if what Ken Ham said is correct (it probably isn't), wouldn't allow people on there talking about how religion is right. I doubt this - I'm sure they will interview theists and post those on their shows. Regardless, it's an atheist network. They can have whomever they want on it in the same way Christians can have whomever they want on their network. There is no fallacy, you're moving the goalposts by saying it's okay for Christians because they don't claim to be superstition free. It doesn't matter if Christians make that claim, the claim is irrelevant.

It's like attacking an openly conservative news station for not allowing liberals to air on their episodes. It's a conservative program, so obviously that's okay. If it's an atheist program, it would make sense for them not to allow theists to air on the show. You can look at it as an atheist club.

My attack was never on their position but more so that you failed to point out their intolerance and then claimed that if they are intolerant then so are Christians.
We need to determine what intolerance is. I clearly stated neither group is intolerant. I simply added that if you believe the atheists are intolerant for the reasons mentioned earlier, then you must also conclude Christians as intolerant as well if you want to remain logically consistent. I mentioned this because if someone is going to say the atheist program is intolerant as well as the Christian programs that don't air atheist messages, then it's merely a disagreement with semantics. If they only believe the atheist program is being intolerant, then they're being logically inconsistent.

You obviously read the article, yet you quoted one half and left the other only available to someone who read the article because it would have defeated your position.
The parts of the article that I did not quote were not relevant and didn't address what I had to say.

This is why I asked for you to provide examples on societies who were atheistic and societies who were theistic. I understand your thesis. Never once have I asked for you to prove your atheism, but you keep insinuating that I am.
Irrelevant. Whether such societies existed or not does not change the atheist position.

I don't know if you have read the bible or not. But it states that every one knows the glory of God... So this is not Ken Ham but God stating that you know He is real.
I understand most of the people here take the Bible literally, so I didn't challenge the Bible. However, I challenged Ken Ham not because he quoted the Bible, but because his argument supporting his conclusion is dead wrong and absolutely stupid.

Which is fine so here is a article and study from Harvard stating that everyone is born with the belief in God. Children are born believers in God, academic claims - Telegraph
This study is inconclusive. It hasn't been peer reviewed and the conclusions he came to seem presumed. It's funny that he concludes children are naturally inclined to conclude that there is a God, but why the Christian God? How did he determine they naturally conclude there's a Christian God? In fact, if the children say "they were put there to look pretty", it only suggests they believe someone or something put them there - not who or what put them there. And knowing children and their limited ways of explaining themselves, one would have to figure out what they meant by "they were put there".

Again, your question is a strawman because I was never trying to argue that atheist morals are better than theistic ones.
I have never argued on morals nor did I say that you were. I am addressing what you very clearly restated not to many sentences ago: we feel religion can have a negative impact on society.This is what I am asking you to prove. Prove that Christianity hurts a society.
You contradicted yourself.

It doesn't matter if I can prove or disprove the impacts of atheism on society. The argument isn't about whether those claims are legitimate or not. I am only arguing what atheists believe as opposed to what Ken Ham says atheists believe.

You are comparing a "spaghetti monster" to God. You are using a known man made idea as a comparison to God, this creates the impression that God and the man made idea are on equal ground.
That's the purpose of analogies! Nothing can be perfectly compared to anything unless they're the same thing - in which case it ceases to be an analogy. You're essentially making it so any analogy that refers to God can't be made because nothing can be compared to God - but this completely misses the point of analogies. Let me rephrase my point in another way.

Ken Ham is arguing:

1. Group A does not believe in X or Y.
2. Group A does not spend any time talking about X; but Group A does spend time talking about Y.

3. Therefore, Group A does not believe in X; but Group A does believe in Y.

This is the non-sequitur argument Ken Ham made.

Exactly my point, you stated We both know Voltron is made up. So, you are doing exactly what I have said a logical fallacy. Or Red Herring.
For you to understand my position, I had to pick something we both know isn't real. If I picked something one of us still believed in, then the analogy wouldn't have worked.

You don't believe in Voltron. If other people did believe in Voltron and you dedicated your time to debunking Voltron, according to Ken Ham's logic, you must believe in Voltron. Obviously, we know you don't believe in Voltron, I'm just showing you how Ken Ham's logic is flawed.

Instead of attacking God Himself and proving his existence as 'superstition'. You hide under this analogy like you did with saying that all Christians are intolerant if this atheistic program is intolerant. Your fallacy is there because you have used a provable fact to insinuate that something else is proved, when it has not been.
Ken Ham is misrepresenting atheist views.

I am explaining what the atheist views are.

I am not here to prove those views correct or incorrect, I am merely here to prove what those views are.

The reason why this analogy is not a fallacy is because like you many atheists claim to be for truth and to get rid of superstition. In your eyes both God and the Easter Bunny are not real. So he points out that you only attack the superstition that you dislike.
Wrong.

This is why I created the analogy! So you could understand why atheists don't worry about the Easter Bunny and why they debate against God! It's because belief in God actually has a major impact on society and because adults actually believe in God!

Seriously, you're so bent on trying to prove wrong my analogy that you didn't even understand why the analogy existed in the first place. If you did understand the point of the analogy, you wouldn't have said something that I've already addressed.

The Voltron analogy exists because we HAVE TO PICK SOMETHING WE BOTH DON'T BELIEVE IN FOR IT TO WORK. I'm not saying "Voltron isn't real, therefore God isn't real." That's not my argument. So it doesn't matter if Voltron is real or not - it's about whether or not we believe in Voltron. You believe in God, I don't, therefore I need to make an analogy to help better make my point. I have to make my point by finding something we can both agree isn't real.

I'm sorry, but if you can not grasp this incredibly simple analogy, I can't waste any more time talking to you. You don't even have to agree with the analogy, you just need to understand it!

I skimmed through the rest of your points and you keep trying to debate the merits of atheism. You keep trying to change the topic.

I'm done.

I came here to correct people's misconceptions about what atheism is and what atheists believe. You came here to debate the merits of atheism. I don't think you're intentionally being dishonest, but you're so focused on trying to prove me wrong that you can't even grasp what I'm trying to say.

Honestly, I was looking forward to a wonderful conversation when I first started reading your last post. But, at this point, I'm just incredibly frustrated because you keep attacking strawmen and you keep trying to change the subject.

I am not here to debate the validity of the atheist perspective. I am here to discuss what the atheist perspective actually is vs. what it is not. I am not trying to convince anyone in this thread that atheists are right. I'm simply trying to educate everyone on what atheists actually think and believe since Ken Ham completely misconstrued that information.
 
Feb 16, 2014
903
2
0
#18
Just to stress my point.

Intentions are all fine and dandy, but they do not help at all. If I intended to give you an apple pie but instead accidentally gave you a raspberry pie which you died from because of your severe allergies to raspberry. My intentions were perfect but the outcome was not... Does the persons intentions count?

I hope you realize this is not a fallacy due to the fact you said. I'm not debating whether atheists are actually finding ways to better people's lives. All I'm saying is that atheists look for ways to better lives. So I was not talking about the death nor the pies. but my good willed intentions only. So I was in 100% guidelines and boundaries of your own logic.
There would be a major difference between saying you intentionally poisoned me with the pie and saying you accidentally gave me the wrong pie.

I'm not saying actions are justified by intentions alone. If you believe atheists have good intentions, but their actions are harmful - fine. That's a debate for a different thread. But Ken Ham and people on this thread are misconstruing atheist intentions.

Seriously, it's not hard to understand. I am not here to defend whether or not atheist arguments are valid or invalid. I'm here to correct misconceptions about what the atheist position actually is.
 
Jun 18, 2014
755
3
0
#19
View attachment 85060 Atheists are just silly little creatures.
This is a false representation of atheism. Atheism is the disbelief in the existence of Gods. Nowhere does that mean atheists can't believe in an ultimate morality, and nowhere is it even reputably suggested, much less logically proven, that atheists commit more rapes, robberies, murders, tortures, child molestations, tax evasions, thefts, arsons, embezzlements, drug distribution, kidnappings, lies or adulteries than Christians do. In fact, the opposite is true.

Pop.jpg

Atheists make up about 10% of Americans, and represent 0.209% of the prison population (as above). Christians make up about 73% of the American population, and contribute to 74.172% of the prison population (as above).

If we correlate those numbers, this means the Christian populations both outside and inside jail are roughly the same, while there are considerably less atheists, percentage wise, inside prison than outside it. 47% of chaplians tracking religious conversion rates in prison say Christianity is growing, while only 12% of chaplians say atheism is growing.

So, even if we assume 50% of those Christians in US jails were not Christian until they went to jail and give the benefit of the doubt to you another way in assuming that all atheists were atheists when they committed their crimes, which is a very generous assumption, this still means that, using some simple mathematics, Christians are 24 times more likely than atheists to commit crimes which land them in prison.
 

T_Laurich

Senior Member
Mar 24, 2013
3,206
78
48
25
#20
This is a false representation of atheism. Atheism is the disbelief in the existence of Gods. Nowhere does that mean atheists can't believe in an ultimate morality, and nowhere is it even reputably suggested, much less logically proven, that atheists commit more rapes, robberies, murders, tortures, child molestations, tax evasions, thefts, arsons, embezzlements, drug distribution, kidnappings, lies or adulteries than Christians do. In fact, the opposite is true.

View attachment 86176

Atheists make up about 10% of Americans, and represent 0.209% of the prison population (as above). Christians make up about 73% of the American population, and contribute to 74.172% of the prison population (as above).

If we correlate those numbers, this means the Christian populations both outside and inside jail are roughly the same, while there are considerably less atheists, percentage wise, inside prison than outside it. 47% of chaplians tracking religious conversion rates in prison say Christianity is growing, while only 12% of chaplians say atheism is growing.

So, even if we assume 50% of those Christians in US jails were not Christian until they went to jail and give the benefit of the doubt to you another way in assuming that all atheists were atheists when they committed their crimes, which is a very generous assumption, this still means that, using some simple mathematics, Christians are 24 times more likely than atheists to commit crimes which land them in prison.
Very cool statistics, might I add a few from Stalin, and Hitler... :D
Just a nice joke.


But in all seriousness where do you personally get your morality. And where does atheism as a collective get ultimate morality?