It's taken me a long time to reply. That's because I have three drafts that will not be used. I have to say, Tim, I'm really disappointed. This question is exactly the kind of apologetic nonsense I wanted to avoid. Not because I can't answer it, but because it has been answered SOOOOOO many times before. All I do is repeat the same stuff you can find with a quick google search on any of these "evidences". You should try www.talkorigins.org. I think they talk about this too.
Look, the reason I asked how much you knew about apologetics was so that we could move past this. I was hoping you were already familiar with this and wouldn't be interested in going over it again. I'm FAR more interested in what you believe, and why. This is NOT why you believe there is a god. This is at best an excuse you give for holding beliefs on faith rather than science.
What I mean by that is you obvioulsy recognize the superior nature of science to explain the universe than faith. Why else do you look for science-like things to support your position? But even if ALL your evidence is TRUE, that does not mean that believing in god is rational.
Your argument is bad logic, and you seem to know it. It is an argument from ignorance, just as you suggest. The argument from ignorance fallacy is NOT that if the atheist cannot disprove god, then god must exist. That fallacy shifts the burden of proof from the one making the claim to the one considering the claim. The argument from ignorance states that if I have no answer for how the univere began, then it is rational to assume a god or diety is the reason the universe began. That IS indeed the argument you make, and that is why it fails before you even state it fully.
There was an interview on Bill O'Riley's show between O'Riley and Dave Silverman of American Atheists. Bill said, "Tide goes in; tide goes out. YOU can't explain that." To which Dave exclaimed, "Maybe it's THOR!" "You can't explain it," Bill repeats. Dave replied, "I don't have to."
See there are two big logical problems here. First, you make the argument from ignorance and fill the gaps of knowledge with god. But there is a second flaw here: Once you open the possibility to the supernatural, ANY supernatural answer will do.
Let's say I concede. I don't, really, but let's say for the sake of argument that I do. We'll look past the first error. So we are looking for a creator. How do you determine which creator it is? Was it Zeus, Jupiter, chtulu, a giant space turtle, a huge world tree, the flying spaghetti monster, Brahma, Odin, a magic bunny, leprechauns, pixies, invisible pick unicorn, Tiamat, etc? How can you tell the difference? If you could use this design argument for the existence of other gods, is it really that good of an argument? If we could end up with the flying spaghetti monster as the creator, is that really the argument that supports the christian position?
See, if you say there is a creator, you really haven't answered anything. We come back to faith, not evidence. How would you make the existance of your god more likely than the existance of another? Keep in mind that christians within themselves cannot come to a consistant description of who or what god is. When you figure out how to prove the Westboro Baptists are worshiping the wrong god, please give them a call. Convince them that they have gotten the wrong deity. When you can do that, I'll be impressed. Until then, you have at best a stalemate within your own religion. We haven't even gotten to flying spaghetti monsters.
Look, Tim. You can go to hundreds of places and get this debate anywhere. That's not what I thought this blog was going to be about. I thought we were going to discuss the REASONS why people believe and do not believe. That is really interesting to me. This argument is NOT why you believe. This is an excuse you hide behind when people ask you why you believe. It may fool another believer, but it won't fool me.
I expect better of you next time, Tim.
Oh, and to all you commenters, I'd encourage all of you to ignore the troll. We had a good thing going here before the troll came and this question, but I am still hopefull we can turn it around. The troll must be very busy, as it has become apparent he has confused me with some "other" Andrew the Atheist. I must attempt to find this other dude, so I can return his troll to him.
Showing posts with label apologetics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label apologetics. Show all posts
Thursday, August 4, 2011
Thursday, July 28, 2011
Andrew the Atheist's thought on the Angry Atheists
I think background helps a lot. It helps give perspective on why the opposing side holds the opposing viewpoint. It gives clarity into what needs to be said, and what does not. See, now that I know you've attended christian schools, I know we share that in common, and I don't have to describe the level of indoctrination that goes on there.
I just want to clarify why the atheist is more likely to both comment here, and be angry. First, why are atheists more likely to be here?
Most atheists I know, and certainly myself, would really like to see an argument from a christian, or any believer, that we have not already heard and considered. One of the objections to going over all the apologetics at my atheist group meetings was that it's so easy to just google them. Spend some time at wikipedia and you'll be an expert. They are all the same; we've heard them before; they never change; and even after they are refutted to peices, they come back. And NOBODY is conviced by them, not even believers.
Because the arguments are used so often, and the rebuttals are so easy, and we all tend to hang around people that agree with us, the atheist is hungry to test these rebuttals in a real debate. We go looking for people that seem intellegent enough to debate, and wonder how in the world they have never considered the opposing side's argument. And everyone loves a train wreck.
Christians, by contrast, have little to gain from these debates. Especially if they are going against an atheist who can clearly outgun them. Just look at what happend on Empire Avenue. Phillippe's blocked me. Frank can do nothing but insult me as he rambles blibber blubber.
If you think that you have the truth, and try to share it with an atheist, and get torn to bits because the atheist knows your argument better than you do, you stop wanting to share it with atheists. Better to try other brands of christians instead. At least they partially agree, and they only disagree on things that cannot be proved through science, and therefore there was no good reason to believe them anyway.
Atheists are angry because we see real HARM that comes from religion, in particular christianity, though other religions are dangerous as well. When Harold Camping makes people beleive that the world is going to end, that's real harm. People lost their life savings; one lady tried to kill herself and her children. That's BAD, and it happened because a religious nut made a nutty claim that held some credit because of a religious theme. That's just one example.
So I'm not surprised that the atheists are flocking here. And I'm not surprised there are angry comments. And I, too, am disappointed there are not more christians here. But I am not surprised.
I just want to clarify why the atheist is more likely to both comment here, and be angry. First, why are atheists more likely to be here?
Most atheists I know, and certainly myself, would really like to see an argument from a christian, or any believer, that we have not already heard and considered. One of the objections to going over all the apologetics at my atheist group meetings was that it's so easy to just google them. Spend some time at wikipedia and you'll be an expert. They are all the same; we've heard them before; they never change; and even after they are refutted to peices, they come back. And NOBODY is conviced by them, not even believers.
Because the arguments are used so often, and the rebuttals are so easy, and we all tend to hang around people that agree with us, the atheist is hungry to test these rebuttals in a real debate. We go looking for people that seem intellegent enough to debate, and wonder how in the world they have never considered the opposing side's argument. And everyone loves a train wreck.
Christians, by contrast, have little to gain from these debates. Especially if they are going against an atheist who can clearly outgun them. Just look at what happend on Empire Avenue. Phillippe's blocked me. Frank can do nothing but insult me as he rambles blibber blubber.
If you think that you have the truth, and try to share it with an atheist, and get torn to bits because the atheist knows your argument better than you do, you stop wanting to share it with atheists. Better to try other brands of christians instead. At least they partially agree, and they only disagree on things that cannot be proved through science, and therefore there was no good reason to believe them anyway.
Atheists are angry because we see real HARM that comes from religion, in particular christianity, though other religions are dangerous as well. When Harold Camping makes people beleive that the world is going to end, that's real harm. People lost their life savings; one lady tried to kill herself and her children. That's BAD, and it happened because a religious nut made a nutty claim that held some credit because of a religious theme. That's just one example.
So I'm not surprised that the atheists are flocking here. And I'm not surprised there are angry comments. And I, too, am disappointed there are not more christians here. But I am not surprised.
Wednesday, July 27, 2011
Andrew the Atheist asks: How much do you, Tim, know about apologetics?
Things are really taking off on this blog, and I'm really excited. But before we go too far, I wanted to ask a question that will bring to the front some background on both the debaters here. I think introductions are overdue.
Atheists, certainly THIS atheist, are often accused of being angry, arrogant, close-minded people. I did a blog on this here. It appears as though the atheist dismisses the argument out-of-hand, without really considering the idea. I don't think this is what is really happening. I think that the atheist has heard the argument before but the believer has never heard the rebuttal.
For example, in a comment, someone said that evolution works like putting parts in a box, shaking it, waiting, and out pops a watch. This is so common an argument that I should be surprised the poster has never heard why that statement is absurd. But I doubt that she has. I would not be surprised if she has no idea. This is what brings me to the question I've posed.
I am an apostate, not just an atheist. I attended 12 years of private catholic schools. I had multiple classes on the old and new testaments. I even attended something very similar to jesus camp. I know the bible. I know the claims of christianity. I know the arguments for christianity. These are reasons why I am an atheist today.
The first-cause argument, the ontological arguement, the argument from design, the cosmological argument, the lord-liar-lunatic argument, Pascal's wager, and a few others the titles of which I forget are all very familiar to me. I've held classes on them. I've argued both sides.
There was a Pew study about a year ago that showed that atheists and agnostics are FAR more knowledgable about religion than believers. I think this is because most atheists have at least heard some of the claims of christianity, and have found them lacking. However, I have found it is perfectly possible to be a believer, and never know why Pascal's wager fails. Some don't even know what it is.
So the question here is simple, yet I hope the answer is long. How familiar are you, Tim, on apologetics? Why are you a christian?
If you want to read my apostasy story, it's in three parts.
Part1, Jesus Camp
Part 2, Finding my religion
Part 3, Falisfiable Evidence
Atheists, certainly THIS atheist, are often accused of being angry, arrogant, close-minded people. I did a blog on this here. It appears as though the atheist dismisses the argument out-of-hand, without really considering the idea. I don't think this is what is really happening. I think that the atheist has heard the argument before but the believer has never heard the rebuttal.
For example, in a comment, someone said that evolution works like putting parts in a box, shaking it, waiting, and out pops a watch. This is so common an argument that I should be surprised the poster has never heard why that statement is absurd. But I doubt that she has. I would not be surprised if she has no idea. This is what brings me to the question I've posed.
I am an apostate, not just an atheist. I attended 12 years of private catholic schools. I had multiple classes on the old and new testaments. I even attended something very similar to jesus camp. I know the bible. I know the claims of christianity. I know the arguments for christianity. These are reasons why I am an atheist today.
The first-cause argument, the ontological arguement, the argument from design, the cosmological argument, the lord-liar-lunatic argument, Pascal's wager, and a few others the titles of which I forget are all very familiar to me. I've held classes on them. I've argued both sides.
There was a Pew study about a year ago that showed that atheists and agnostics are FAR more knowledgable about religion than believers. I think this is because most atheists have at least heard some of the claims of christianity, and have found them lacking. However, I have found it is perfectly possible to be a believer, and never know why Pascal's wager fails. Some don't even know what it is.
So the question here is simple, yet I hope the answer is long. How familiar are you, Tim, on apologetics? Why are you a christian?
If you want to read my apostasy story, it's in three parts.
Part1, Jesus Camp
Part 2, Finding my religion
Part 3, Falisfiable Evidence
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)