1-on-1 debate: Christianity has more adherents than Atheism.

[gethine]

What relevance does the original question have to anything though?

wha was he original quesion? i forge.

he leer '' doesn' seem o be working on my keyboard!

i've jus posed fine wo minues ago! no way!

edit: letter t is now fixed - kids crumbs.

[heavycola]

well Ok it wasn't really a question. But so what if there are more christians than atheists?
Do numbers make a belief or lack of it any more valid?
Are catholics included in teh christian headcount? What about Fred Phelps and his delightful cult? Jehovah's witnesses? Xian scientists?

But really - what on earth does it matter?

[beezer]

well Ok it wasn't really a question. But so what if there are more christians than atheists?
Do numbers make a belief or lack of it any more valid?
Are catholics included in teh christian headcount? What about Fred Phelps and his delightful cult? Jehovah's witnesses? Xian scientists?

But really - what on earth does it matter?

Hi everyone, I'm not really good at the whole debate thing but I still like to chime in every now and again.

I think that the # of Christians or Atheists (or members of any major religion) matter in this sense: People hold to certain values based on their religious beliefs. They want these religious values to be implemented into the laws of their respective countries. So they express these values when going to the voting booth and electing individuals with the same set of principles. This is especially true in direct democracies and representative democracies around the world.

Even in countries that do not have a form of democracy, there is still a certain amount of pressure for the government to cater to individuals based on the majority of people who express themselves as members of a certain religion or belief system.

[MeDeFe]

so... "might makes right"?

[neoni]

itt christians don't understand what atheism is

[MeDeFe]

Or rather what it isn't.

[beezer]

so... "might makes right"?

nope, just saying that it definitely makes a difference in how each country writes/implements its laws.

[Guilty_Biscuit]

I think it depends on the definition of Atheist.

The more specific definition of an atheist is someone who believes there is no god. I say believes because there is no way to prove that there is no god.

Someone who doesn't believe in a god but doesn't claim that there is *edit* not a god would be better defined as agnostic

I am an atheist but of the non-believers there are a lot fewer people who adopt atheism than agnosticism. So looking at the numbers involved I would say that there are far more Christians than Atheists.

*edit* The word definately was removed thanks to stopper

[Stopper]

This page explains it better than I have time for at the moment.

It doesn't mention that Richard Dawkins and Bertrand Russell were both self-styled atheists, but neither (afaik) has said there are definitely no god(s).

[Guilty_Biscuit]

Those are the commonly used definitions which is where all the confusion comes from. 'Weak Atheism' is another word for Agnosticism.

As for Russel - he accepted he was Agnostic but called himself an Atheist to avoid that very confusion.

....I never know whether I should say "Agnostic" or whether I should say "Atheist". It is a very difficult question and I daresay that some of you have been troubled by it. As a philosopher, if I were speaking to a purely philosophic audience I should say that I ought to describe myself as an Agnostic, because I do not think that there is a conclusive argument by which one prove that there is not a God.

On the other hand, if I am to convey the right impression to the ordinary man in the street I think I ought to say that I am an Atheist, because when I say that I cannot prove that there is not a God, I ought to add equally that I cannot prove that there are not the Homeric gods....
-Bertrand Russell (1947)

http://www.positiveatheism.org/hist/russell8.htm

Dawkins (being a scientist rather than a philosopher) doesn't need a 'perfect proof' to disbelieve in God:

We cannot prove that there is no God, but we can safely conclude the He is very, very improbable indeed.
-Richard Dawkins (1994)

http://www.simonyi.ox.ac.uk/dawkins/WorldOfDawkins-archive/Dawkins/Work/Articles/1994-12religion.shtml

To avoid confusion when debating the definitions should be as I posted - although the word 'definately' needs to be changed which I will do now

[Stopper]

On the other hand, if I am to convey the right impression to the ordinary man in the street I think I ought to say that I am an Atheist, because when I say that I cannot prove that there is not a God, I ought to add equally that I cannot prove that there are not the Homeric gods....[/i]
-Bertrand Russell (1947)

Well, I meant atheist to mean the definition above. Russell used a teapot to further the above point. I didn't mean philosophical agnostics outnumbered practising Christians - I meant atheists - either by the above definition, or by default. I think I'd be going out on a limb to try and suggest that most people have actually given the level of thought to their spirituality or religion to consider themselves philosophic agnostics.

[Anony#1]

Athiesm is a belief all in its own.

strong atheism (aka positive atheism) is, indeed, a belief. otherwise, your statement is false.

i hate comparing a sect of theism to atheism. it's all rather simple:

atheism = a simple philosophy (you can describe your stance in one statement; with one line of text)

xianity = a complex philosophy so much so that it has dozens of sect's within it. thus it obviously has flaws within it from the fact that there's different congregations.

rather foolish, me thinks.

[Guilty_Biscuit]

[quote="Stopper"]Well, I meant atheist to mean the definition above.quote]

You are right - my point is just that depending on which definition you use the answer will be different.

[Guilty_Biscuit]

rather foolish, me thinks.

I agree completely, the burden of proof shouldn't fall on people who don't believe.

[CrazyAnglican]

This debate is complete.

http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=16563

Please read the statements and vote there and discuss it further here if you would like. Enjoy !

[got tonkaed]

Dont get me wrong...good job finishing the debate...but CA dont you think if your going to be atheism vs any theist perspective, the debate should maybe include an atheist?

[beezer]

Dont get me wrong...good job finishing the debate...but CA dont you think if your going to be atheism vs any theist perspective, the debate should maybe include an atheist?

So does that mean you are volunteering to debate him? Would you count yourself as an atheist or an agnostic?

[got tonkaed]

ive already said im not really in favor of this style of debate....but if you look at the thread i was just joking i dont think we have both sides of the coin there.

I label myself as an atheist fwiw.

[CrazyAnglican]

Dont get me wrong...good job finishing the debate...but CA dont you think if your going to be atheism vs any theist perspective, the debate should maybe include an atheist?

As far as I know juggernaut is an atheist. I didn't specifically ask him. The rules are I have to take the first person who responds. He was the first person who responded. If I do anything else then I can be accused of picking my opponents. But the only person who could clear that up is Juggernaut, not me.

[beezer]

ive already said im not really in favor of this style of debate....but if you look at the thread i was just joking i dont think we have both sides of the coin there.

I label myself as an atheist fwiw.

What I see here on CC is atheists piling on Christians. This is at least civilized and people walk away politely.

[got tonkaed]

if he is an atheist i apologise, the language he uses throughout the debate portrays him as a conservative christian. Even you CA seemed surprised by his argument, which came off as very conservative christian. Im in no way faulting you CA i just thought it was a little different than you must have expected.

Beezer, i dont like this specific style because it promotes a notion that theres a winner or loser we can determine, which i dont think is that applicable with these issues. I cite this argument earlier in the thread i believe.

I wont say that there arent some individuals who dont pile on at times, but like anything, i think it tends to go both ways to an extent. I feel i do a pretty fair job in general of attempting to remain civil and i think many who dont agree with my views would back me on this. Im always happy to discuss religion, i just prefer not to do it in a debate style, thats all.