"The numbers do not demonstrate anything."

[garbonzo]

Anyway, the numbers do not demonstrate anything. The fact that there are many atheists in America and Europe does not make Atheism right. During World War II, most Germans were Nazis. Did this make Nazism right? Of course not.

I am debating with a fundie, and would appreciate some tips. I was saying that I expect that society will accept atheism as the dominate err, I guess belief? Atheism is still a belief kind of... a belief of non-belief! =D

She then said that the numbers do not demonstrate anything as quoted above.

I've been doing well so far, and I think I am winning. (I would not be a very good debater if I cannot win against a fundie, loool)

I would just appreciate some tips. I can pull a rebuttal out from my head, but I would like to know how others would approach this, for a more effective answer. Thanks!

 

[Syne]

Nope, she's got you over the barrel of an argument by consensus. You cannot rebut her without appealing to a logical fallacy.

 

[wynn]

If you set out on a path of revenge, prepare two coffins.

 

[Arioch]

Syne is right. Appealing to the popularity of an idea as if that has any impact on it's validity is a fallacy(though if your friend is a fundie then I highly doubt she'll call you on it, still, it's good to know). Some other popular ideas of history were that the Earth was flat, that trepanning was a cure for various mental disorders(oddly enough "aeration of the vagina" was another), and that people suffering from narcolepsy were "in touch" with the divine. None of these ideas were correct even though they were massively popular(some, such as the trepanning example, were even SOP).

So in this round she's got you, but there are plenty of logical, rational arguments both for atheism and against christianity, you just need to do some research.

 

[Crunchy Cat]

I am debating with a fundie, and would appreciate some tips. I was saying that I expect that society will accept atheism as the dominate err, I guess belief? Atheism is still a belief kind of... a belief of non-belief! =D

Atheism is technically a lack of belief in a 'God' or 'Gods'; however, to have a word for it is kind of silly for personal identity. If you don't collect stamps do you identify yourself as a non-stamp collector? Atheism (as part of a person's identity) is usually a political position of marginalizing theism.

She then said that the numbers do not demonstrate anything as quoted above.

I've been doing well so far, and I think I am winning. (I would not be a very good debater if I cannot win against a fundie, loool)

I would just appreciate some tips. I can pull a rebuttal out from my head, but I would like to know how others would approach this, for a more effective answer. Thanks!

As syne and Arioch have stated, you have lost this specific argument; however, I *suspect* you don't quite understand why so I will explain. If a large group of people agree that something is true then that is their *opinion*. In other words truth is not the same as human-to-human agreement. Truth is a state of correspondence between a notion / idea and reality. It is a human-to-reality agreement. As an example, if I believe that you are holding an apple and I observe the reality of you holding an apple then my belief is true (the idea that is in my mind matches actual reality).

 

[Sarkus]

garbonzo, your only real path out of this particular cul-de-sac with your "fundie" is to agree that the numbers indeed do not demonstrate the truth... and that was not your point in mentioning it... and then come up with another reason... such as showing how it does show that religions are going to have to step up their arguments to win over new followers when the option of non-belief is clearly becoming more widely accepted.
i.e. don't claim that the numbers invalidate or are an argument against the beliefs of the religions, but perhaps use the numbers to show how the religions are possibly becoming less important etc.

 

[garbonzo]

garbonzo, your only real path out of this particular cul-de-sac with your "fundie" is to agree that the numbers indeed do not demonstrate the truth... and that was not your point in mentioning it... and then come up with another reason... such as showing how it does show that religions are going to have to step up their arguments to win over new followers when the option of non-belief is clearly becoming more widely accepted.
i.e. don't claim that the numbers invalidate or are an argument against the beliefs of the religions, but perhaps use the numbers to show how the religions are possibly becoming less important etc.

That is actually what I was going to say. I've already used the example of the popular notions of the world being flat or dome-like when the fundie used the exact same reasoning on me in the exact same comment! Rofl!

Well I am going to add that it is growing because of the facts behind it, which Christianity does not have. That is different than the world being flat or dome-like because that was not surrounded by facts.

 

[Syne]

Well I am going to add that it is growing because of the facts behind it, which Christianity does not have.

That's a losing strategy if you're facing a savvy opponent. She could easily show that modern communication has provided people with much more information on a variety of religions, showing the similarities and making specific affiliations unnecessary. What you call "facts" are likely not empirically conclusive.

 

[Arioch]

@Syne --

Still, any amount of evidence(or in this case lack of evidence which should be there) is better than what christianity has.

 

[Syne]

@Syne --

Still, any amount of evidence(or in this case lack of evidence which should be there) is better than what christianity has.

A lack of conclusive empirical evidence cannot favor any one particular conclusion, thus non-conclusive. Most everything else is opinion.

 

[Arioch]

@Syne --

Oh contraire, absence of evidence that should be there does constitute evidence of absence. If you gave me a box and claimed that there was a cat inside, and I opened it up and didn't see a cat, this would be an absence of evidence which constitutes evidence of absence.

The evidence that should have been left behind by the christian god, what with all the prayers he should have answered(according to the bible god should be answering every single prayer by every faithful person) and the other divine interventions(which all stopped right around the time we became able to document such miracles, coincidence? or is god suffering from performance anxiety?), would have been overwhelming by now. That there is literally no such evidence that should be there is indeed evidence of the absence of the christian god.

Keep in mind though that I am only speaking about one specific god here, not the existence of god in general.

 

[garbonzo]

@Syne --

Oh contraire, absence of evidence that should be there does constitute evidence of absence. If you gave me a box and claimed that there was a cat inside, and I opened it up and didn't see a cat, this would be an absence of evidence which constitutes evidence of absence.

The evidence that should have been left behind by the christian god, what with all the prayers he should have answered(according to the bible god should be answering every single prayer by every faithful person) and the other divine interventions(which all stopped right around the time we became able to document such miracles, coincidence? or is god suffering from performance anxiety?), would have been overwhelming by now. That there is literally no such evidence that should be there is indeed evidence of the absence of the christian god.

Keep in mind though that I am only speaking about one specific god here, not the existence of god in general.

Agreed completely. I introduced an infallible contradiction into the debate, so that's what I mean. And yes, this is debating against the Bible's inspiration, not God in general of course.

 

[Syne]

@Syne --

Oh contraire, absence of evidence that should be there does constitute evidence of absence. If you gave me a box and claimed that there was a cat inside, and I opened it up and didn't see a cat, this would be an absence of evidence which constitutes evidence of absence.

The evidence that should have been left behind by the christian god, what with all the prayers he should have answered(according to the bible god should be answering every single prayer by every faithful person) and the other divine interventions(which all stopped right around the time we became able to document such miracles, coincidence? or is god suffering from performance anxiety?), would have been overwhelming by now. That there is literally no such evidence that should be there is indeed evidence of the absence of the christian god.

Keep in mind though that I am only speaking about one specific god here, not the existence of god in general.

What should be there is not itself conclusive either. There are logically consistent reasons that can reconcile these.

 

[garbonzo]

What should be there is not itself conclusive either. There are logically consistent reasons that can reconcile these.

Such as?

No God would allow his word to have contradictions, errors, fallacies galore.

Every God who wanted to be known, would give some sort of evidence for their existence.

If you don't believe this, then why are you an atheist? Just trying to understand...

We all agree that there can be a possibility of a God, but not the Abrahamic kind.

 

[Arioch]

@garbonzo --

An evil god would.

 

[Syne]

Such as?

No God would allow his word to have contradictions, errors, fallacies galore.

Every God who wanted to be known, would give some sort of evidence for their existence.

If you don't believe this, then why are you an atheist? Just trying to understand...

We all agree that there can be a possibility of a God, but not the Abrahamic kind.

If the free will of man is the co-opted will of a god then all is reconciled. All of a god's actions are through men, with all of their extant foibles. And who said I was an atheist, or any other label for that matter?

 

[garbonzo]

If the free will of man is the co-opted will of a god then all is reconciled. All of a god's actions are through men, with all of their extant foibles. And who said I was an atheist, or any other label for that matter?

I read through your posts. Seems like you are a agnostic atheist like the rest of us.



You ignored the point. Sure a God could be there that does not want to be known like you suggest, but that shows that a God does not care about how we live our lives, or if we believe in him or not, since all of his actions are through us. Right? Point made.

 

[garbonzo]

@garbonzo --

An evil god would.

Depends on your definition of evil. If God wants us not to believe in him then he won't provide evidence for such. Does that constitute evil?

If God provides a book with inaccuracies then it still means that he doesn't want us to know him. Does that constitute as evil? :shrug:

 

[Balerion]

I read through your posts. Seems like you are a agnostic atheist like the rest of us.

Who are "the rest of us?"

 

[Balerion]

Depends on your definition of evil. If God wants us not to believe in him then he won't provide evidence for such. Does that constitute evil?

If God provides a book with inaccuracies then it still means that he doesn't want us to know him. Does that constitute as evil? :shrug:

Considering that this same god supposedly punishes eternally for the crime of unbelief, I would say obfuscating his own existence and rendering so many people effectively incapable of blind faith constitutes evil.

Of course, "evil" only exists in this context. In reality, there is no such thing.