Er, this isn't true. There've been Christians who've converted to atheism. (Admittedly, I can't recall any on this forum, since it's still kind of new, but a lot of the regulars here used to be at Infidel Guy and a few people converted there.)

This is true, technically. Not because we're stubborn, but because the opposition bases its arguments on faith and the supernatural -- the latter is beyond reason and logical arguments by definition (go read todangst's posts), and the former is a rejection of the need to support one's arguments with reason in the first place. So, yes, we won't be dissuaded by logic, because the alternate position of theism doesn't base itself on logic.

We are open-minded. It's just that no one's ever made an argument for God that hasn't been seen a thousand times before. They're all variations on a theme, and they all involve logical fallacies and poor premises that even a newbie can pick out with a little thought.

Do Christians believe that Joseph had two different fathers at once, or that Jesus had four different last words at once, or that Uzzah was struck down in two different places at onc, or that just one woman, just two women, just three women, or at least three women all showed up at the tomb at once, or that there were 28 and 43 generations between Jesus and David at the same time, or that Jesus was the first to rise from the dead and not the first to rise from the dead at the same time?

(Oh, and the Trinity is an incoherent and meaningless concept anyway. I don't think I'd base an argument on it.)

So, when someone says that the Bible has the answer to everything, and we point out that it doesn't, we're the ones who look stupid?

Well, normally you'd get a dozen posts explaining the burden of proof, weak vs. strong atheism, the default fallback position of nonbelief, agnostism as compared with atheism, and so on. But since you've said you're not really going to listen, it doesn't matter.

Normally I wouldn't care about your grammar, spelling, syntax, etc. But since you brought it up: "Atheists believe in their ideas as strongly as Christians."

Note:  my quote button is not working but I'm trying my best.  Quotes are in black. 

Quote:  Do Christians believe that Joseph had two different fathers at once, or that Jesus had four different last words at once, or that Uzzah was struck down in two different places at onc, or that just one woman, just two women, just three women, or at least three women all showed up at the tomb at once, or that there were 28 and 43 generations between Jesus and David at the same time, or that Jesus was the first to rise from the dead and not the first to rise from the dead at the same time?

You either misunderstood me, or are just trying to be smart; it doesn't matter either way because I will clarify. What I meant with Christians believing two things at once is that they think that it is possible for it to be written by humans and be error prone yet still be inspired by God.

Take your example of Joseph having two different fathers. This would be an example of a contradiction, to be sure, but it is one that has almost no affect on the Bible. God and Jesus do not change because Joseph has a different father, and some would therefore say that it doesn't matter. Let me put it this way: the writers of Bible might be error proof, but the Word of God is not. I know a pastor who tried to explain this to me once, but its still kinda weird. I could try to explain it with Platonic forms, but I'm too damn tired to try that now.

Quote:  So, when someone says that the Bible has the answer to everything, and we point out that it doesn't, we're the ones who look stupid?

Yep. Sorry to break the news to you. In all seriousness, when Christians say that the Bible has all the answers, they usually mean questions that arise during everyday life. And to answer your next response, they don't consider part of everyday life. On that note, I do have some non-scientific questions which the Bible fails to answer.

As to the burden of proof, look at it this way. We don't know if there is a God, or any type of superhuman creator. So if someone were to ask you "Is there a God", the best answer would be "I don't know" because in all honesty nobody knows. So if you are to say there is a God, or there is not a god, you must provide reasonable proof to show this. The error many of you, Christians or Atheists, make is that you believe that you're view is the default. Well, you're both wrong.

Wow, I'm making no friends this way.

So if someone were to ask you "Is Zeus the king of the Gods?" your answer would be "I don't know."? If so, that's your perogative. My answer would be a definative "No.", even though, just as with god, nobody really knows.

Don't worry about that.  I'm not holding any of this against you personally, and I've already applauded your approach here.

Quote:  So if someone were to ask you "Is Zeus the king of the Gods?" your answer would be "I don't know."? If so, that's your perogative. My answer would be a definative "No.", even though, just as with god, nobody really knows.

 That question assumes that there are gods, and that Zeus is one of them.  I'm just pointing out that if you want to make a claim, such as the nature of a diety, you must provide proof.  Here's a similar question that I challenge anyone to answer:  Is there extraterrestrial life in the universe?  And on that note, who would have the burden of proof on this question?

Hey xamination! Welcome to Rational Responders!
I'll start by explaining quote tags:

[quo te=Strafio]Insert quoted text[/qu ote]
Hope that was helpful. You can still stick to colours if your prefer.

1. Quote:

   Try to understand that a contradiction of events does not necessarily mean that the entire record is false.

   
   Awww... come on! You don't think our rejection of the Bible is based on a couple of minor contradictions. The main argument against it is that we have no reason to distinguish it from other myths and legends, that it should be treated like normal mythology.
   
   Again, if you hang around enough on this website then you'll come to learn the real reasons for atheist disbelief.
   
   
   Quote:

   There is some question of who the burden of proof is on. I say that both parties have to shoulder the proof, as neither side has any definitive proof about the existence of God. Neither idea is more established than the other. But as no one is really going to listen to the other side, it doesn’t matter.

   
   This is an interesting question.
   For bodies of public knowledge (like science) then the burden of truth is the one making a positive claim. However, I think it's a bit more complex for personal beliefs. I'm planning to write a topic on this sometime.

So Christians believe an all-powerful perfect being somehow couldn't get his message across to the folks taking dictation. Good to know. If the Bible is inspired by God, if God cared so much about the transmission of his message, why would he sit back and let people get it wrong?

Well, except for demonstrating that the Bible is not, in fact, inerrant. But, you know, contributing to the undermining of the validity of the Bible isn't THAT big a deal. The stuff about Joseph's father is one thing, but there are contradictions about many more relevant details, ranging from the details of Christ's resurrection to the relationship between Jesus and God to the question of still obeying the Old Testament to the supposed prophecies Jesus supposedly fulfilled to the proper manner of salvation.

So the word of God has mistakes? Seriously? Even us poor limited human beings have editors who can weed out mistakes for us. God really dropped the ball on this one, dude.

Awesome! Where's the verses that have a clear point on cloning, stem cells, Christian rock music, environmentalism, celebrating holidays, war and pacifism, drug use, government protest, vegetarianism, organ donation, or the separation of church and state? (And, as the CAPAlert guy -- a fundamentalist Christian movie reviewer -- once admitted in his review of "Alive", the Bible has no position on whether eating the bodies of the already dead for survival is immoral or not. Not that this is an everyday thing, but you'd think it'd be good to know just in case.)

So you're saying that even with your depiction of "answers to everything" as just applying to everyday life, that the Bible doesn't actually have answers to everything. So, again, how are we the stupd ones when we point out that the Bible doesn't have the answers to everything about everyday life, when even you admit that it doesn't have those answers?

Nonbelief is the fallback position by default. Otherwise we would have to accept everything we heard until proven false.

I already have, so this comment is false.

That's fine. They aren't the main target. Those who watch them make fools of themselves in debates are those who are the main target. At least my main target anyway.

Most christians haven't even read the whole thing. If they had, they probably wouldn't be christians.

For some perhaps. Not all. I've known 3 people who were once theists that I convinced were wrong simply because of their fallacies.

I always am, though it may appear otherwise so I can get a point across.

I already listened to most everything the other side had to say. Then I discarded it as impossible fiction. If something new is presented, I'll listen.

I'd be one of the first to notice such a thing. I read the news every day before going to any forums.

As long as respect is given, it will be recieved. I won't give respect to those who don't deserve it.

I do pity them, but not for being foolish. I pity them for being brainwashed. Foolishness is a natural symptom of brain washing.

In general no, but there is very little that is actually accurate within the bible. Most of it is fictional history stolen from older cultures.

True. To an extent.

I almost never argue from the bible in the first place, so this scenario is beyond unlikely.

No. The religious just don't tend to accept logic, as you mentioned earlier. The burden is still on them though, whether they like it or not.

Atheism has it's proof. The laws of physics. Amongst other things. It's interesting that atheism has proof even though it's usually impossible to prove something doesn't exist.

That's a matter of opinion. I happen to disagree. Even theists usually follow secular rules because they're secular. But no atheist I've heard of follows a religious rule because it's religious.

It does matter. Whether the theist I'm arguing with acknowledges reality or not, many of those watching the conversation will.

Lol.

Heh. Grammer nazis are everywhere. I tend to ignore them myself. It doesn't matter if you spelled something right as long as you got the point across.