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.
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.