EPH2:8 wrote:
Hey all,
I was wondering if some people could help me through this. I’m a Christian. I often hear from atheists “there is no evidence for Christianity�. Christians sometimes present what they believe is evidence and it’s rejected by the atheist as evidence. Everyone ends where they began.
The Christian continues to try and respond to the atheist, presumably because the Christian believes they are correct and if they are correct the atheists soul is at stake. The atheist continues to state there is not enough evidence to believe, presumably because they think they are correct.
I often hear from the atheist “I am not saying God does not exist, I am saying I lack belief in God�. I often then see the atheist mock the Christian for “belief without evidence�.
We atheists constantly get told that atheism is the belief--or worse, the certainty--that gods do not exist. So we push back against that misrepresentation.
People who identify as atheists generally include all non-theists as atheists. So, to us, atheism includes both strong atheists (those who, like me, believe gods do not exist) and weak atheists (those who don't believe either way).
It may be that you'd like to engage with some strong atheists, to ask us
why we believe no gods exist. I think you'll find we're happy to defend our position, so long as we can do so without conceding that all atheists are strong atheists.
So if you say something like, "Those of you who believe there are no gods, why do you believe that?" you'll get the answer you're after. But, if you instead say something like, "Why do atheists believe there are no gods?" then you'll get only semantic argument on the meaning of "atheism."
My question is...
If there really is a lack of evidence for Christianity being true and people still believe it, from an atheistic perspective ...so what? The Christian is making a truth claim about reality, and while I’d like to argue the atheist is as well, I’m often told atheism makes no claims.
Because atheism includes weak atheism, which is not believing either way.
The atheist then often continues to attempt to poke holes in Christianity all while hiding behind the guise of "I'm not making any claims".
Some of us make claims. And even some of the weak atheists are happy to point out logical flaws in a particular religion. You don't have to "hide behind" something to point out someone else's logical error without making a claim of your own.
Suppose that I said that theists claim that baptism is by immersion. You wouldn't come back with a defense of baptism. You'd come back with an explanation that not all theists believe in immersion, and not all theists even believe in baptism.
That wouldn't mean you were hiding behind something. That would just mean you were clearing up a semantic misconception before you could go on to the meat of the argument.
I could have avoided that semantic argument by saying, "Those of you who believe baptism has to be by immersion, why is that?" Then we'd get right to the meat of things.
But if I start with, "Theism says that baptism must be with immersion," then you wouldn't be hiding behind anything when you said, "No, theism itself doesn't make any claims about baptism."
Now I believe a worldview should be supported by evidence because I believe truth about our reality / universe / God does exist. From any atheistic perspective, which makes no truth claims about reality and the existence of God, why do you challenge a worldview an individual holds all while not making claims of your own?
Most arguments have one person advancing a claim while another defends against it. That's normal. There's nothing wrong with it.
Hypothetical argument:
Sara: "Two plus two equals 1731."
Joe: "No, that's way to big."
Sara: "All right hotshot, what do you think two plus two equals."
Joe: "Something well less than 100, I'd imagine. I don't really remember."
Sara: "Don't hide behind your own ignorance. If you don't think 1731 is right, you have to provide a better answer."
Joe: "I really don't. I just have to point out that your argument isn't compelling. I don't know the right answer, but I know that your answer isn't right because two evens always add up to another even."
Sara: "No, you can't legitimately claim to be refuting my answer unless you provide your own."
But Sara's wrong about that. a1731ists include 4ists and 7ists and many other ists. a1731ism doesn't make any claims in and of itself (because it also includes weak a1731ists, those who don't have any opinion).
Now, it is possible to set up a special debate where both sides carry the burden of proof, and both sides try to defend against the other person's claim while asserting their own. This is a more than average complicated debate format. It works best with people who like and trust each other, or who are just good at staying focused.
You'd have to set that up, though. You can't just start out by saying, "God is real," and assume that anyone responding has assumed the job of proving that gods aren't real.
It comes off to me as
1. Theist:Im Correct
2. Atheist: No you're not
3. Theist: Oh, you must hold the truth than, show me what is correct
4. Atheist: Im not making any truth claims, I don't have to, you're just wrong. [line numbers added]
In line two, the atheist makes a claim. So the atheist has assumed the burden of proof regarding that claim. The atheist could meet that burden by proving that gods don't exist, but she could also meet it by showing that the theists argument was flawed.
Depending what came before line 1, that burden might be met by as little as just pointing out that atheism, in and of itself, makes no assertions.
