coelacanth~
Hello and welcome to CFnet! I do not normally like to debate, however that would depend upon your view of debate. :yes
Also, normally, I do not tend to partake of these foundational faith discussions. The reason is because I believe what the bible says about humanity before we come to faith. ( I include myself, as a one time unbeliever ) That no unbeliever may understand the truths in the bible unless they are "spiritually" enlightened. Which requires a work of God in the heart; and only after the choice has been made to understand the Bible as it is revealed by God, not by humanity. Therefore, Christians can share their faith and insights with you, however, as a professed atheist, you may never understand any of them. So the whole exercise could be useless. :nod
However, I also believe the bible when it says, that no one may come to God unless they are first drawn by God.
If you are merely looking to go rounds with others about issues you have knowledge about to excerise your intellect, I wonder why you would choose Christians as sound thinkers to debate with, and why you would desire to discuss atheism if ( as you say, it is a logical yet subjective choice as your ideology ). How can people who have turned away from your worldview as "error" possibly offer you worthy opponents?
I am honestly interested in your answers, I am not goading you at all.
Also, on the premise~ from my end~ that you may be drawn by God here to find Him... let me ask you about the evidence from the book “Society without God†by Phil Zuckerman. First, much like yourself, I cannot appreciate debate that is unfair, ie.
I can offer my own views, but atheism is without any doctrines, so my views are my own.
That is fair, and calls for fairness.
If you desire fairness, then you need to play by the rules you set. Phil Zuckerman's book is hardly a realistic offering to compare worldviews. He never once separates the differing religions of the world into separate views. He treats Muslims and Christians and Jews as having the same worldview.
His book divides statisics as he sees fit, ie. "using Scandinavian countries as societies without God." I am certain many Christains and Muslims live there. He also fails to even begin to look at prior treatises that have done excellent work in refuting religious societies. As an intellectual, you can find much weighter works to debate with, that are not so filled with error.
Also, we can all quote statistics till we are blue in the face and talk theoretically about societies ills, we will be bored in no time. So what? We have all heard it before. BLAH BLAH BLAH...
Since your beginning conclusion is that society is better off without God, why don't we let our discussion go to the truly subjective and more interesting level immediately? How is your life better (using whatever premises you want ) without God? :eyebrow I would be ready to talk along those lines with you. :nod
Awaiting your reply... bonnie