“Reality is a cocktail of fantasy” Micah Purnell.
We lie to ourselves all the time. I lie to myself about how good-looking I am. I like to imagine that ‘I’ve still got it’. And then I walk past a reflection of myself that I wasn’t expecting to see, and before my brain has chance to readjust to my idealised view, I catch a glimpse of what I actually look like – how other people see me. And it hurts; so I blot it out as quickly as possible.
We all construct our own truth. It’s our way of getting through life. And when a lie gets told and retold, eventually the real truth gets suppressed and our constructed truth becomes our reality.
A great example of this is the film Shutter Island (Spoilers ahead). In this film, Leonardo di Caprio is a man driven insane by the death of his children and murdering of his own wife. Unable to cope with the truth, he constructs his own reality where he is a renowned detective. The doctors at the mental asylum where he is housed decide to use this constructed reality in their favour, and set up a false trail of clues for “Det. Teddy Daniels” to follow – which ultimately lead to the uncomfortable truth that he is not in fact a detective, but is the asylum’s most dangerous patient. At the climax of the film, he rejects the real story in favour of his created universe – and is lobotomised!
So what about you? What if the worldview you’ve constructed is false? And what if you’re missing a greater truth – and, unlike in Shutter Island, a better truth? Here are some signs that you might be intellectually dishonest when it comes to the question of God.
1. You only read/watch what you already agree with. The books/blogs you read – or videos you watch – fit in with your existing worldview and serve simply to confirm your own prejudices. You deliberately stay away from anything that might challenge you. You start to unfollow people who post things on Twitter and Facebook that you disagree with. This is telling. When we truly feel comfortable with what we believe, we can happily imbibe contrasting or conflicting views. If you’re so sure you’re right, then why do you shy away? There’s a chance that you’re strengthening the foundations of a belief that you’ve built upon the sand.
2. “People who disagree with me are stupid!” That’s why you don’t read or watch anything Christian – they’re so obviously deluded. But it’s not that, is it? Psychologically, when we don’t want to be challenged by something, we need to convince ourselves that it is ridiculous. We need to alienate it and dispose of it. So we start using extreme words like stupid or irrational, which help us distance ourselves from the challenge. This is where terms like Magic Sky Clown and Jewish Zombie come from. By reducing Christianity ‘ad absurdum’, we don’t need to worry about its potential truth. We wrap ourselves in protective labels.
3. You get angry with those who disagree. You swear at or shout down people in conversation, or walk away from a discussion. You convince yourself that your anger is righteous at how immoral their viewpoint is, but is that really true? Anger is what happens when we don’t feel in control and try to re-exert our own power in a situation. Think of any scenario where you’ve lost your temper and you’ll see it follows that process. It’s an emotional response, not an intellectual one. It’s a sign that you’re out of your depth, that you don’t know everything. People sure of what they believe and confident of its truthfulness tend to remain calm in conversation. “I get angry ‘cos they’re stupid!” you might say. See bullet point 2.
If you’re getting angry when talking to Christians, maybe you’re not quite as clued up as you thought you were. That’s OK – just follow the path where it leads.
4. You use words like ‘rational’ and ‘logical’ and ‘free-thinking’ to describe yourself. These words are like verbal placebos. They create a pleasant feeling of security in us without actually proving us to be any of those things. However, calling yourself logical and rational doesn’t somehow magically transform all your ideas into logical, rational ideas.
5. You deliver statements as though they are questions. But you’re not really looking for the answers. A question like ‘How could God allow so much suffering?’ is a good question, but it doesn’t automatically follow that he wouldn’t. The answers to these questions are hard, of course, but they’re out there, if only you’re prepared to look.
Have you considered that maybe you’re using the question to shield yourself from the answer?
6. You use ad-hominem attacks. When you fear that someone ‘on the opposing side’ is more knowledgeable in their viewpoint, or you run out of your own arguments, you try to undermine them by criticising their moral character or appearance. Looking to devalue what someone has said because of something you don’t like about them is a common trick, but totally dishonest. It also commits the genetic fallacy, but I’m probably an idiot for saying that.
7. You quote famous atheists, without being able to back up their arguments. Dawkins, Hitchens, Bertrand Russell. In place of delivering your own ideas and thoughts, you simply quote something that one of your heroes has said. The problem is that you find it much more difficult to build on those sound bites when pushed. An example of this would be ‘You’re an atheist when it comes to Zeus. Atheists just go one God further’. How would you respond when informed that this is a joke, not an argument? What’s your follow-up argument?
See what I mean? A quote from an atheist is not in itself an argument for atheism. We all need to be careful that emotive, persuasive language doesn’t replace actual argumentation.
8. You use generic catch-all phrases which show your poor hand. ‘Everybody knows Jesus never existed’, or ‘It’s a scientific fact that science has disproven God’ work here. Statements like this are usually a dead giveaway that you haven’t really looked into what you’re talking about. Usually, whatever it is that ‘everybody knows’, everybody doesn’t know it – you wouldn’t have to say that if it were the case. And usually, ‘everybody knows’ really means ‘I don’t know’. Top academic debaters don’t go around saying ‘everybody knows’, in the same way that serious scientists don’t talk about science disproving God. For people who do know what they’re talking about, this sort of conversational device just calls your own bluff.
9. You never really critique your own beliefs. Attacking, ignoring or sneering at other viewpoints is often a way of deflecting attention away from yourself. Sadly, despite what we’d like to believe about ourselves, most people in our society aren’t won over by reasoned, rational arguments, but by advertising. Are your reasons for believing what you believe genuinely rational and considered, or are they simply a verbal manifestation of how you feel? And are your reasons for rejecting other worldviews equally rational, or does the idea of a God who has more power than you simply create a negative emotional reaction, which you then reject? Does it cut up your desire for autonomy, or conflict with your trust that you are in control?
My belief is that, if you do any of these 9 things, you may be confusing your intellect with your emotions. Crucially, the reasons most people give for rejecting Jesus are almost never as rational and well-thought-out as they think, but instead a sort of advertising slogan for their desires.
How we feel is not always a good gauge of truth. The truth doesn’t always underwrite our feelings, but often wounds them.
How will you deal with that? What do you want? Your truth? Or The Truth?
Because The Truth might be better than you think.
Brilliant. *Gets popcorn out*.
Many, if not all of these points, apply to any entrenched or passionate viewpoint. They are traps Christians can fall into too.
UE
I agree Utar. I think it’s something we all need to be aware of. Thanks for joining in.
Well said Utar. As I stated in my response, the article should be re-written as “9 Signs that You Might be an Intellectually Dishonest PERSON” period.
True
I also have to agree with Utar. Though I think I’d have to go a little further. Most of the items on this list are things we see more from theists than atheists.
Pot – Kettle
Especially #7. It’s a bit rich coming from a community that consistently tends to quote one single collection of stories ad nauseam.
I agree with most of these and I don’t have any of these intellectual dishonesty.
I’m just a simple nonbeliever I guess.
Wow, I thought this was rather interesting. Good article.
I followed a link here from the freedom from atheists site. It’s funny that the very fact that site exists makes it just like many of these “signs” that you listed. There is ignorance on both sides.
Not sure why this is applicable exclusively to atheists…seems it’s universally applicable.
You’re right that it’s universally applicable, but I think that the reason that the article focuses on Atheists, is simply because of how often it’s observed. I personally tend to shy away from Atheist comments and videos, because they all use these specific arguments an absurd amount of times. I’ve seen Christians do the same thing on Creationist videos, which I tend to get sick over, as well, but most of the time, it’s Atheists. They may use all 9 with equal frequency, but I just don’t see it, and I’m not the type to pull favors just for playing in the same court as me.
I should amend my comment on shying away from Atheist videos and comments, it’s only the comments and videos that tend to feature these arguments, which just happen to be an absurd amount. It’s the same with Creationists.
How do you know in advance which comments and videos are going to feature which arguments?
I’ve got the oxygen tank ready. Begin holding your breath…NOW.
You are generalizing all atheists and also breaking rule no.1 posted above .
Oh , the Irony !
” I personally tend to shy away from Atheist comments and videos”
“1. You only read/watch what you already agree with.”
The irony – it burns!
Perhaps because it was primarily written to give the impression that atheists are not intellectually honest.
I’m sure you know of many people who take positions on all sorts of things without thinking them through properly.
It’s to be expected that there are Atheists, and there are Christians, and there are other religious positions, that can be held for the wrong reasons.
Taking a position of Atheism doesn’t make one intellectually dishonest, but equally it doesn’t mean the opposite.
The article as I read it points out some of the fallacious reasoning in arguing for the position of Atheism. I think it’s unfair to say it is making out that all Atheists are not intellectually honest.
Yes. That is part of being human and knowing humans. It knows no religious bounds. But I wouldn’t use that as an excuse to falsely represent the thought process others are using (which is what I was accusing this article of doing).
Agreed I guess, although I’m not sure what I said that gave the impression this needed to be pointed out. My complaint isn’t that Andy is suggesting some atheists might be intellectually dishonest. Various people who do or do not believe in gods may or may not be intellectually honest. Belief in god can be an influence on intellectual honesty, but there are other factors. Commitment to intellectual honesty is what caused many of us to leave christianity in the first place, but “god isn’t real” is just a conclusion. A conclusion someone could potentially come to for a variety of reasons, not all of them sufficient to justify that conclusion.
But that isn’t what Andy said.
He said that most people who don’t believe in his god have insufficient reasons because their reasons are mostly these (or similar) reasons.
Think back to all the arguments you’ve ever had with critics of christianity. Have you ever seen even one real person actually say or do anything that bears any resemblance to anything described in this list (aside from using the Zeus bit from #7 which is an argument Andy just didn’t understand, or calling themselves rational free thinkers, which is not the glaring weakness he portrays it as).
I read it as pointing out reasoning which is selected on the basis of being fallacious, falsely claiming this reasoning is being widely used in arguing for the position of atheism (without even one example for any of these unrecognizable descriptions), and then declaring based on the fallaciousness of some things someone hypothetically could say that most real people who don’t believe in his god don’t believe for these or similarly foolish reasons.
Was it written to respond to atheists the author saw engaging in this reasoning (who? where? when has this ever happened?), or was it written to give theists the impression that this reasoning was common among atheists?
I read it as intending to give the impression that “the reasons most people give for rejecting Jesus are almost never as rational and well-thought-out as they think”. If this was not Andy’s intent, why use those exact words? And if it was, why not address some of the actual reasons real people give for rejecting Jesus?
Not every heathen will give the same reasons but there are some pretty major recurring themes, such as lack of evidence for god, major flaws in every argument for god, historical and scientific inaccuracy in the bible, atrocities in the bible being ordered or carried out by the same god christians worship today, the bible describing that god in other ways that make him seem really unworthy of worship, principled objections to worshiping anything, the bible contradicting itself at every turn, the bible reading so much like what power hungry humans would have written and so little like what an all powerful god would write, words being transcribed in the bible as coming right from the mouth of god which are so flagrantly wrong that no christian today would even admit god ever said those things, the teachings of Jesus which are supposed to be the high point turning out to be just as violently authoritarian as the rest of the book once you get past the parts they talk about in church and really read the gospels, the lack of any historical confirmation on the existence of Jesus, doubt that this man’s life, death or teachings are accurately described in these four conflicting anonymous biographies written fourty to ninety years after Jesus’ death by people who never met him, finding the central christian doctrines of original sin (the idea that you were born guilty of something someone else did before you were born) and substitutionary atonement (someone else being punished for something you are guilty of) not only grossly immoral but corrosive to any meaningful understanding of morality, finding the christian doctrine of hell to be both grossly immoral in its infinite punishment of finite sins and transparently a way of threatening people into believing, not to mention disagreement with the idea that not following god’s orders is legitimately a crime deserving of any punishment, finding the idea of heaven to be transparently an attempt to bribe people with an unverifiable reward that the church never has to provide, finding the church’s influence over the last seventeen-hundred years to be mostly harmful to human society, finding the church’s influence today to be mostly harmful to human society (I’ll stop the list there since my point in this thread isn’t to attack christianity but rather to provide some examples of things real people might say while attacking christianity).
But despite all these objections having been openly stated in public forums by countless atheists, every week I see some christian (not that I blame all christians for this, but it is common enough that I can give examples) completely ignore that these objections have been stated and respond to imaginary atheists saying they just want to sin.
I don’t expect someone defending christianity to admit these objections are enough to prove their beliefs untrue. But why the hesitation to even admit these objections have been made?
If the goal is to give the impression that atheists do not have good reasons to not believe in god, wouldn’t that goal be more effectively pursued by going after the most seemingly good reasons to not believe in god? Not dealing with the real objections of real critics just gives the impression they can’t be dealt with.
Why superimpose “9 Signs That You Might Be An Intellectually Dishonest Atheist” on those pictures of Russell, Hitchens and Dawkins if he weren’t trying to influence his readers to associate those men with the tactics and arguments listed here (and trying to keep his readers from looking at their reasons)? Russell, Dawkins, and Hitchens all wrote books openly stating their reasoning for not believing in Andy’s god. It would not be hard to ascertain their real stated reasons. If cost is an issue, The Age Of Reason is now in the public domain, and that would provide a good sampling of the reasons that some real people have put forward for rejection of the faith this article was intending to defend (a faith whose holy book even says not to bear false witness).
If christian doctrine is a house built on solid ground then why not occupy the solid ground and be a little more intellectually honest in dealing with its critics. If christianity is what it is supposed to be, then surely the real arguments made by real critics would be destroyed like these nine men of straw if they ever went toe to toe with the overwhelming truth of Jesus. Shouldn’t that be something defenders of the faith want?
Why should it ever be necessary to put facile words in your opponent’s mouth if their real words are no threat?
Hi Nox,
Really appreciated your comment. You make many points to which I’d like to respond.
On Andy’s position for writing, the style etc. it might be a little provocative – yes. The question is, is the provocation warranted? I think so. Even if the positions stated have only been observed once. Many Christians have encountered these arguments; I know I have. I’m not sure if I’ve seen all 9 in one person – but yes, I’ve seen them all in various forms and to various degrees. Some I’ve heard from big names, some from students at universities, and some from friends. I have also met atheists for whom none of these apply.
We could go back and forth on the style and tone etc. but moving on …
As I count it, you made 17 solid objections to the Christian faith. Many Christians may ignore some or all these – but speaking for myself, I wouldn’t want to, and I know many others would agree with me. I know Andy wouldn’t want to ignore these either. (I’m looking for the author link here to Andy’s other posts – but it doesn’t seem to work …). Going back through the blog, I can see Andy has written on Biblical Contradictions a couple of times, Extra-Biblical material, a four-part look at Hell, the evidence for the Resurrection, and Morality to name a few. So on that front, I don’t think Andy – for one – would hesitate for a moment to admit theses tough objections.
You say:
I completely agree. This is a great point. Speaking for myself, I know this drives quite a lot of what I write about on this blog (e.g. articles on Morality, human character, the Fine-Tuning Argument, the Cosmological Argument, Old Testament Morality and again, the Atonement, Psychological ‘Wish-Fulfilment’, Gospel eye-witness testimony, the historical evidence for Jesus)
Your list of objections are well thought-through and definitely worth responding to. I hope we can offer further responses to those over the coming weeks (as I contributor to this blog, I can guarantee that in part we will cover some of the areas you mentioned).
At this point I’d like to ask a question: what would be enough evidence for you to reconsider Christianity? I can assure you that there’s nothing behind this question other than curiosity on my part.
Thanks again for the comment. I appreciate the sincerity and thoughtfulness.
The only one I am “guilty” of as a self-proclaimed strong anti-theist is number 4. And to have a honest and sincere discussion, #4 should be a per-requisite for all involved in the discussion!
Yeah, I definitely disagree that #4 is a sign of intellectual dishonesty.
The others all qualify, though I don’t understand why the author seems to think atheists use these techniques any more or less than other groups. There are plenty of Christians who do these same things all the time.
And especially #1, Christians do a LOT more than atheists. Christians gather in church on Sundays to be amongst each other and listen to the echo chamber while they pray. There are Christian book stores, Christian schools, etc. Ever heard of an atheist specific book store or school?
Not that I’m saying all Christians avoid discussions with atheists, but given that they’re the majority group, and atheists are far less common, it’s a lot easier to find Christian bubbles than atheist bubbles.
Thanks for posting mate. One thing that sticks out here with these comments is that in the US Christians are still the majority, whereas here in the UK we’re not. We’ve got to be careful to say that Christians or atheists do something a LOT more than each other, don’t we. Capitalising something isn’t a good argument. The article never said that only atheists did it- it was simply designed to get people discussing it. Job done.
Number 10: Believing that you are infallible, and a list of common logical fallacies only applies to people of the opposite viewpoint. Fail.
Yup, believing that your opinion is infallible is definitely a sign of intellectual dishonesty. That particular technique is used by Christians all the time when defending the Bible.
You’ve used the phrase logical fallacies there incorrectly, I think. Also, nowhere does the article say that Christians are infallible. You know, I think you might want to have a re-read and see whether you’ve fallen into some of those categories mentioned. Once again, thanks for posting.
And you’re obviously guilty of a few of these. Because if you did any research into atheism, or debated any non religious person with half a brain, you wouldn’t have used the ridiculous example “It’s a scientific fact that science disproves God.” I don’t know any atheist who would say this absurd statement. Or the one before it. They aren’t in agreement with the definition of atheism. You don’t understand the word, and you don’t understand burden of proof. Since this is a very commonly discussed issue in the “God debate”, you clearly aren’t well read at all on the subject.
Atheists typically don’t claim anything to 100% certainty, and are open to new evidence on these matters.
But we all know the real reason you used this statement, as it is the motive behind this entire article. You do know it is absurd, and that intelligent people wouldn’t say that. You are simply trying to make yourself, and other theists, appear much more smart and dignified than atheists and nonbelievers. Because this entire article could be written without labeling atheists as the primary perpetrators. You are using your intelligence and insight for trickery, and it’s painfully obvious.
Have you ever been to /r/Atheism? I’ll grant that many atheists do not make such inane statements, but I’ve also met some who’ve said things like “science and religion are incompatible” and “free will has been disproven” and other similarly sweeping and infuriating statements.
I’ve also met people who do things like raise the problem of evil and act as if it is a bulletproof shield that no theologian has ever encountered, much less solved. This is completely preposterous when, as the Catechism of the Catholic Church puts it, “there is not a single aspect of the Christian message that is not in part an answer to the question of evil.” Literally the whole point of Christianity to answer this one problem that the skeptic treats as some newfangled innovation.
Stupid people exist on both sides.
Saying that science and religion are incompatible is not the same as saying that science has disproved God. They are incompatible because religion relies on believing the claims of ancient scriptures, while science relies on empirical facts gathered by studying the physical world. Science has no opinion on unprovable or supernatural claims, until they present something which can be studied.
I personally (as an atheist) think that free will is a real thing (and that it’s just as metaphysical, and therefore just as unprovable, as the existence of gods). However, I don’t find that Christianity and the Bible could be true and still uphold free will. If God is all-knowing, then he sees our past, present and future, just as accurately as someone who knows every line in a movie from beginning to end. If I know what the characters in a movie will do five minutes ahead, then there is no way for those characters to act in any new way that I did not foresee. If anyone has completely accurate foreknowledge of the future, then that would destroy free will. We would all become equivalent to puppets, fulfilling our pre-destined storylines without any possible deviation.
The problem of evil is one that theologians have indeed encountered, but not solved in my opinion. I don’t even need to look to Earthly life for examples, evil can be found in Christianity’s own God-directed doctrines. Take Hell, for instance. Eternal, torturous punishment is immoral for ANY crime.
I consider the word “evil” to describe anything which increases suffering in the universe. If God can see our entire lifetimes, then he knows what paths we will take. He knew if a person would be an atheist even before he created that person, before even creating the universe at all. Knowing all this, he still created people who are doomed to hell ANYWAY. If God wants a universe with as little suffering as possible, then this is the wrong way to go about it. A better choice would be for him to simply NOT create people that he KNOWS are destined for this suffering. It is “evil” to deliberately create beings that are capable of suffering, with full knowledge that they will suffer forever. There is no way to reconcile this with concepts like love, justice or mercy.
Supernatural claims can be studied by science. The science that studies them is cognitive science. The claims themselves are biological phenomena occurring in the human central nervous system and can be studied as well as anything else in nature. The reason why theism is false is that we already know the general features of human cognition that explain all supernatural claims handily–the power of imagination and systematic gullibility.
Well, that seems like a minor semantic quibble. Supernatural CLAIMS can be studied by science, yes. But supernatural PHENOMENA cannot (if they could, then they’d be natural phenomena).
But I agree, imagination and gullibility provide all the framework we need for understanding supernatural claims. Such claims exist all over the world, regarding all manner of different gods. Humans are clearly given to creativity, especially in the face of the unknown. But unprovable speculation cannot fill in the gaps of knowledge.
Most claims about the supernatural include descriptions of its interaction with the natural. Christians, among most other supernaturalists, claim that their God interacts with the natural world. This makes their claims fair game for scientific investigation.
Consider intercessory prayer, for example. A large fraction of Christians believe that praying to God or His subordinates can influence His actions. I won’t get into the theological questions this raises, but only point out that intercessory prayer can indeed be scientifically investigated, and has been investigated in multiple studies. The general conclusion from studies which are well-designed and large enough to be statistically meaningful is that intercessory prayer does not have a measurable positive effect. The exceptions to this are a couple of studies which are strongly suspected of being fraudulent (Elisabeth Targ, and the Columbia prayer study).
I don’t know if I think there should be MORE scientific investigation in this area, or less. On the one hand, maybe it could help to settle some of these matters once and for all. On the other hand, it probably wouldn’t, and I guess it would just be an irresponsible waste of time, effort and money which would be better spent in a million different ways.
This is a great point. Chief amongst the positions that we can study would be the Resurrection. This is the central Supernatural claim that happened in full view of a watching (natural) world.
The evidence from supernatural events is just that – evidence. Christianity is the belief that a Jewish man was God, in the flesh, and he died and came back to life.
Of course, we can’t perform Scientific research on this death of Jesus – for one thing, it only happened to him once, and science was 2,000 younger at that point. But the Historical evidence which is still open to scrutiny can and is investigated in detail. For more on that look at: http://www.cvm.org.uk/blog/demolition-squad/is-he-risen/
” If God is all-knowing, then he sees our past, present and future, just as accurately as someone who knows every line in a movie from beginning to end. If I know what the characters in a movie will do five minutes ahead, then there is no way for those characters to act in any new way that I did not foresee. If anyone has completely accurate foreknowledge of the future, then that would destroy free will. We would all become equivalent to puppets, fulfilling our pre-destined storylines without any possible deviation”
Incorrect assumption, you analyzed God and a individual as yourself and found them to be one in the same, which they are not. If God is all knowing then this does not deny freewill, as freewill is on our part(s). We are not the sum of all mass, we are not God, so we still have the objectivity of freewill. However if we believe in God, evidently do we have free will? Of course, as we are humans we are relative to time, and subject to change, so are accountable to the limits of time and life therefore freewill exists for us. Though to clarify, you state that us individuals become like puppets, and yet you state this in a negative context, only because you fear what you least understand, and do not love God. Love love itself? Not a idol or a god or a subject but love God/love itself, that gives life meaning and yes freewill, the freewill to destroy the temple, why? Because we feel we own our bodies, so we can do what we like to it.
One, I cannot shoot laser beams from mine eyes. Therefore I lack FREE will. Since your god would punish me for how I use it, it cannot be described as freewil, but only Will.
Also, You are attempting to have your cake and eat it too. You completely ignored the point. Your god cannot be all knowing and give us free will.
Your stating things you believe as fact(s), but these things you are asserting are fairytales just as the ones you think are our own make-believe stories.
Now, I cannot be all knowing but how can you believe God will punish you? Our God forgives to those who repent, yes repent. Yet you state your beliefs like God punishes those who repent, which is a fabrication of our belief. Since you do not appear to understand our law or our God, then you assert your beliefs on your own assumptions, there is no cake so stop stuffing yourself with this attitude.
I did not ignore the point, I have a different opinion to you, your intrepretation and mine differs, so you believe I am wrong as we are not in accordance with one another. But you are missing the point by attempting to constrain reality with your intrepretation of God/love. You are judging God, yet cannot concieve the magnitude of God, so how may I ask, can you judge something you cannot image exists?
Thanks for putting a whole bunch of words in my mouth and then rambling on about why what I didn’t say would be wrong.
In what sense can a god know everything and not know everything at the same time?
Can you ask a sensible question to a fellow human being Jack. How can a man, answer a question like that? I would answer if you have a serious question to God pray for your answer Jack.
If you cannot answer that question, then to presume it of your god is special pleading. Why should I accept your special pleading?
I am pleading?
I’m beginning to think english isn’t your first language.
And you can assume anything you want, you have the freewill to do so 🙂
If you can’t conceive of the magnitude of god, how can you state that it has a magnitude at all?
I asked if you cannot conceive God, how can you judge God? I didnt say I cannot. And magnitude is size, and God is infinite, so the magnitude of God is infinite. Please continue to play games with me. But it, is you, that has the problem. Not me. Especially not God. God bless you Jack
I can conceive of a god just as you can, and I reject that conception as impossible. Why does no one have the right to judge god? You’re beginning to fall into a circular trap. You cut off questions of his omnipotence by saying no one has the right but you can only say no one has the right by invoking his omnipotence. That doesn’t fly.
I have no problem. My cognitive functions are not impaired as yours are.
“If God is all knowing then this does not deny freewill, as freewill is on our part(s).”
If freewill implies that we can do something that god does not know about, god is not all knowing. If god has perfect knowledge of every decision we will ever make, we cannot do otherwise.
Well, I can only make comparisons based on the data I have available to me. I can’t be faulted for not being able to envision the universe from a God’s perspective. But if I were omniscient, and I knew that you were going to say everything that you just said before you said it, I don’t know if I’d still be able to describe your behavior as “free will”. From my omniscient point of view, you would be traveling along a predictable, pre-programmed track, that will play out exactly as I already know it will. It seems like it would be difficult to think of your personal decisions as being made “freely” when I’ve already known the full script a trillion years before you existed.
I haven’t given the concept of free will a whole lot of thought (since, as an atheist, I am unconcerned about this apparent paradox), so I may stumble a bit as I try to describe the philosophy of it. But I think I would define the phrase “free will”, at least in part, as describing a state where we can make decisions that take us in unpredictable directions, where we can behave in “surprising” ways to those that have certain expectations. If any being exists in a state with ultimate predictive abilities and complete “unsurprisability”, then that being does not have the ability to observe my decisions with any sense of expectation or anticipation, as if it did not know what my free will was going to lead me to do.
If there could be some being sitting next to me, who was calling out everything I did just a second before I did it (“now you’ll pick up that cup, now you’ll take a deep breath, now you’ll tell me to stop it”), besides growing quickly annoying, it would also make me seriously doubt that my “will” was actually “free”. I would feel very pre-planned.
Important things in life hinge on the decisions we make with our free will. We have no way to know if our free will will lead us to success or failure. We often sweat with terrible anxiety because we don’t know how these things will turn out. It really destroys the significance of these pivotal events if they are all already known and written down somewhere. I would feel like, cut to the chase already.
I can imagine a movie character discussing free will, and saying this very same thing. He would seem to say it with the belief that it were actually true, that his very speech was being directed by little “word choices” of free will. But he’d still be bound to the script which the “omniscient audience” already knows. A being who knew that the speech was coming, and every word of it, would know that the speaker would not have the free will to give a different speech.
Well, wouldn’t it be better to be a creature who has every unknown possibility ahead of us, rather than one whose future is already written, and who can only fulfill the pre-known? Yes, I would think of being a puppet as a negative.
I think you might be jumping ahead a little in presuming my reasons. It might be more appropriate to ask me why, rather than to tell me why.
I’m sure everyone fears what they don’t understand, to some degree. But I like to think of myself as a person who also seeks to understand what I don’t understand. If I don’t “love” God, it is only because I have never met nor spoken with him, and I find many of his supposed doctrines to be questionable (to say the least).
But I have never met ANY gods. I have only met the humans who claim to represent them. These people have spoken of many different gods, and none have yet to seem plausible to me (this might be something that you and I have in common; I suspect that you find almost all the very same gods implausible too, save for one). I don’t love the God that you believe in, in the same way that I don’t love Thor, or Apollo, or Quetzalcoatl, or Astarte. These are fascinating stories, but I’ve yet to see a reason to assume they’re anything other than the cultural myths of various parts of the world, from a time when humans had poor tools to explain their universe.
As I see it the problem is not that no theologian has ever encountered the problem of evil; nor is it that no theologian has ever explained the problem of evil. My real concern is that none of the explanations seem convincing.
Sweeping yes, probably infuriating to you; but the important question is: are these statements true (or at least: can they be intellectually defended?)
1) On the question of the compatibility of science and religion, first you need to define “compatible.” I have heard many (including atheists) argue that there are many scientists who believe in God, and that this constitutes evidence that science and religion are compatible. Lawdy Mae! As if humans do not have a well-exercised ability to compartmentalise incompatible beliefs.
2) Free will: My experience has been that most disagreements on free will come down to using different definitions of the term, rather than disagreement on substance. Also, the basic question is very different for naturalists and theists.
Solved the problem of evil have you? How cute. You seem to think the problem is that there is evil. While that is the crux of the argument, that is not what one is referring to when they say, “The Problem of Evil.” Read the full explanation by Epicurus and get back to me on how the christian message “solves” the problem.
If you’re referring to the Trilemma, updated by Hume, and recently by J. L. Mackie, then that argument has been dealt with quite well in philosophy.
Alvin Plantinga, for one, has written on The Free Will Defence and shows that the classical trilemma (that is – 1) God is all-powerful 2) God is all-good 3) Evil exists therefore 1 and/or 2 can’t be true) doesn’t disprove the existence of God by showing that there may be examples where God would allow evil to exist – in this case to permit humanity Free Will. In suggesting good reasons why God might allow evil this shows that the premises of the trilemma aren’t completely, necessarily true, thus disabling this challenge.
This is predicated on allowing one to arbitrarily define freewill though. If my inability to fly does not violate my freewill, why would my inability to murder?
“Oh, well flying isn’t part of freewill [no one can fly, you don’t have wings, etc].”
And that is exactly how you would refer to murdering were you incapable of doing it.
And to approach it from the other angle, how is it that god must allow people to murder, or the will to murder to preserve freewill, yet he doesn’t do so for everyone. There is a condition called Anencephaly in which a child is born brainless. In what sense does that child have freewill? If that child possesses freewill, and yet cannot commit evil, why then could god not give us all anencephaly?
I’m afraid the problem of evil persists.
Hi Jack – I take your point, the Free Will defence does not solve the Problem of Evil completely. But I think it does effectively defeat the philosophical challenge.
By positing reasons why God may permit evil to exist, the argument that God must remove all evil fails. The Trilemma is based on the understanding that God must remove all evil because an all loving and all powerful God would have to do that. But by introducing situations where God may have good reasons for allowing evil, the premises of the Trilemma fail to be necessarily true.
This doesn’t deal completely with the Problem of Evil – we still have many existential problems, Gratuitous/Horrendous Evils to deal with, and so on. But it does deal with the philosophical challenge of Epicurus and co.
“But by introducing situations where God may have good reasons for
allowing evil, the premises of the Trilemma fail to be necessarily true.”
Sure, but you didn’t do that. You arbitrarily defined a word and used it as a justification for an arbitrarily defined deity’s actions. And as I pointed out, the two don’t even go together as you say they do.
To say there could be a good reason, and yet having none in mind – while talking about a known reality, to dismiss that justification would be a false dichotomy – when talking about a proposed hypothetical entity, it is special pleading. I could not say as my defense at trial that “Maybe I had a good reason for committing murder. Since perhaps I did, you must excuse my action as justifiable.”
Without presupposing his omniscience and omnibenevolence, there is no reason to give him the benefit of the doubt.
“Without presupposing his omniscience and omnibenevolence, there is no reason to give him the benefit of the doubt.”
However, that is exactly what the Trilemma does presuppose. So, taking that position to start with, and introducing reasons why God might allow evil to exist, the necessary conditions required fail, and the whole argument fails.
This of course, does only deal with the Trilemma, but again, as you point out – we can and should define our terms better. I think a lot of that is done in other parts of the Problem of Evil argument, away from this philosophical challenge.
So, were you on the jury, you would vote not guilty given the following defense: “Maybe I had a good reason for committing murder. Since perhaps I did, you must excuse my action as justifiable.”? Because you are saying that is sufficient enough for god. And you did so by providing a reason that I pointed out doesnt hold up at all.
jack7, you are right! If the law allowed for such conjecture. But the law does not allow for murder under any circumstance so there can be no good reason for committing murder. So in order to excuse the actions of the murderer you would need to judge the law itself, but who has the authority to do such a thing as that!?
Someone has never heard of justified homicide. So false premise and you still managed to get pretty circular with it…
Also, humanity, as the lawmakers, have the authority to judge the laws. Hence the existence of legislatures, and, you know, judges.
This article isn’t saying that all atheists are intellectually dishonest. It’s goal is simply to make those who are reconsider their position. You may not know atheists like these, but I certainly do. And even some of the big names mentioned sometimes talk about Christians like they’re stupid. Well, that’s not true. Many many Christians are just as intelligent as atheists, but they’ve come to a different conclusion. Look up John Lennox, for example.
What does the intelligence (or lack of intelligence) of a person tell us about the truth (or lack of truth) of a conclusion? Those are different questions. The problem is not that Lennox is lacking in intelligence. The problem is in his reasoning process.
It’s interesting that Andy claimed atheists appeal to authority and you defend him by appealing to John Lennox.
Wouldn’t you agree that, just as there are indeed Big Atheists who may talk about Christians like they’re stupid, that there also exists Big Theists who do the same? Shouldn’t we all simply agree that we should act civil?
While it is true that there are members of both sides of the debate who act in a less than respectable manner, we can also all (hopefully) agree that both sides have very polite, intelligent people on them as well.
Now, as to Andy referring to Lennox, he used the reference as an example of the fact that despite some atheists’ comments on theists, there are many intelligent theists, just as there are atheists. He wasn’t appealing to authority, he was using a well-known example to emphasis the point. One can also use quotes in such a manner, as long as the context is correct.
Kathryn: I agree that intelligent people abound on both sides of this. My point being that Andy referred to Lennox as an authority due to his position…the very thing he accused atheists of doing.
This article is hilariously ironic and self-refuting, not even worth responding to, but since I had the misfortune of landing on this waste of internet bandwidth, I should register a mistake in this comment. I’m an atheist and I definitely would say, and have said, pretty much the same thing as “it’s a scientific fact that science disproves God”. I would never use such horrible phrasing, and I’d never use a singular or capitalization of “god” when the point applies to the plurality all gods ever imagined. I am 100% certain that science disproves all gods and I consider it a scientific fact. The fact that human brains make gods is on par with the fact that plant photosynthesis makes ATP. Talking about “new evidence” on this matter is like wondering if a banana on your kitchen counter might suddenly turn into an apple. If there was any counterevidence on this matter it would’ve been mentioned by someone in the past few centuries that the topic has been hammered to death by millions of people.
Also, you’re wasting time defending atheism’s “proper definition” as the absence of theism. For most atheists it’s the explicit denial of theism, and this is a claim we can and should defend. In fact, I believe can be argued that weak atheism and strong atheism are logically equivalent. You’re not representing “true atheism” with this tired “we don’t know” schtick. We actually DO KNOW that all the gods are imaginary, and that knowledge comes from science, the scientific fields that actually study gods, which are anthropology and cognitive science. The whole philosophical conceit of “we don’t/can’t know” is obsolete 19th century pre-scientific literary philosophy babble.
It’s a shame you think science has disproved God. You should tell that to the scientists who are Christians.
Even more, you should tell the philosophers who don’t think God’s existence is a purely scientific question.
“You should tell that to the scientists who are Christians.”
Someone needs to. Fortunately most of them got the memo already. Your failed appeal to authority hinges on the existence of cognitive dissonance. An all too human trait.
Failed appeal to authority? I’m sorry, but unless you have done all of the work of all of modern science yourself, personally, in your own home, you appeal to the authority of scientists every time you speak about the topic. And to suggest that scientists who are Christians (of which there are fairly significant numbers) are somehow experiencing cognitive dissonance is beyond fallacy – it is just a claim without any knowledge whatsoever.
I’ve debated irrational atheists before, so I know where this is headed. If you want to bury your head in the sand, you are more than welcome to. You are your own worst intellectual enemy.
Just saying things doesn’t make it so.
Accepting the results of peer reviewed science does not qualify as an appeal to authority. To strain the definition that far would make using your cards as evidence of your poker hand an appeal to authority.
Please explain how people applying skepticism and rationality in one aspect of their life and failing to do so in another is not a form of dissonance.
Not to mention, you’d still be appealing to authority so you’re still wrong.
“Accepting the results of peer reviewed science does not qualify as an appeal to authority.”
You don’t think appealing to the authority of a group of scientists is an appeal to authority?
You’re not appealing to the scientists. You apparently don’t k of what peer reviewed means. It means that even YOU could read the research and check the work. You could recreate the same results by performing your own experiments. In what sense is that an appeal to authority?
“It means that even YOU could read the research and check the work. You could recreate the same results by performing your own experiments. In what sense is that an appeal to authority?”
Go for it. Try to repeat the experiments of astrophysicists and molecular biologists. Go ahead.
This is flailing of the highest order. You are clearly not repeating other people’s experiments. Very few experiments (practically none in “social sciences”) get repeated by anyone. So you and others are taking scientists on their authority as scientists.
Once again, unless you personally run experiments, you are appealing to the authority of someone else who ran them. It’s an appeal to authority. Appeals to authorities are not always fallacious. That was the original point. And much to the waste of your flailing, it remains true.
Except those studies have still been repeated and reviewed by peers. Hence the term peer review. And they took notes and did math etc etc. And you can check all that. That is different than saying Dr. Whoever has PhD after his name so what he says is right. It’s VERY different.
“Except those studies have still been repeated and reviewed by peers. Hence the term peer review. And they took notes and did math etc etc. And you can check all that. That is different than saying Dr. Whoever has PhD after his name so what he says is right. It’s VERY different.”
First, Peer Review is not a guarantee of truth. In fact, it may in many cases be a guarantee of overconfidence. I suggest reading many of the articles on this site, starting with this one, and following the logic: http://wmbriggs.com/blog/?p=337
Second, whether you trust the people who have done peer review or an individual himself, the fact is that without replicating something yourself, you trust the authority of someone else (plural in the case of peer review or singular in the case of an individual scientist).
You simply can’t get away from this. Trusting in legitimate authority is not fallacious, so the argument is not whether someone trusts in authority, but whether authority in a particular case is valid.
Holy shit. I’m going to say this just one more time. There is a difference between a guy saying “I’m a scientist and I say this is this way and I’m right because I’m a scientist.” And “I’m a scientist, and this research supports the idea that this is caused by that and here’s all that research for you to look at”
That’s all well and good, but I challenge you to find anywhere that I have said that “I’m a scientist and I say this is the way and I’m right because I’m a scientist” is a valid form of reasoning.
Is it when I said that you’d have to explain the fact that there are Christians who are scientists? I would be interested to see you construct how this is an appeal to authority. I never said that Christianity is true because scientists believe it. I hinted that perhaps scientists believe it because it is true. You can’t have that; I understand. But it was not a fallacious appeal to authority.
” I never said that Christianity is true because scientists believe it. I hinted that perhaps scientists believe it because it is true.”
So you didn’t make an appeal to authority you were only alluding to one? Because unless that ends with the scientist presenting evidence for why Christianity is true, you’re just appealing to the fact that they’re a scientist. Or do you think you could replace scientist with plumber and make the same point? If so, you’ve failed to really say anything at all. If not, you’ve appealed to that authority. Which is interesting since plenty of scientists don’t accept Christianity which means you’d still have to see why different ones believe different things and then THOSE things are what you should have brought up to begin with. That’s how you can tell it’s a fallacy.
If you’re speaking with such antiquated folks, please do me a favor and tell them for me. There are hundreds of scientific specialties that have nothing to do with the cognitive phenomenon of supernatural beliefs, and the opinion of a scientist on a topic outside their specialty doesn’t carry special weight. Philosophy is how people deal with topics that science hasn’t covered yet. There is no longer a philosophy of plants. We just have botany, a science. The philosophical discussion of gods is an old game of words that people cling to because they don’t understand our new scientific knowledge of human cognition.
“Philosophy is how people deal with topics that science hasn’t covered yet.”
Hah! -This- is gold! Be real careful if you have such disdain for philosophy. You’ll probably gravitate towards one of the popular nonsense philosophies like scientism. Though it seems you might already be there. Philosophy is a prerequisite to any rational discussion or any approach to understanding knowledge, being, or ethics. So discard it as you might discard the foundation of a skyscraper as you stand on its roof.
“The philosophical discussion of gods is an old game of words that people cling to because they don’t understand our new scientific knowledge of human cognition.”
No, not really. But its a shame if you think so, especially if you have attended a university. You’ve been deprived of an education.
Thank you for your deeply original 19th century opinions about academic knowledge.
what you just wrote fulfilled all that the author wrote. Thank you. You’re in denial.
“This article is hilariously ironic and self-refuting, not even worth responding to, but since I had the misfortune of landing on this waste of internet bandwidth, I should register a mistake in this comment. ”
That actually proves point 3 ha ha
Thanks for validating this blog entry with a demonstration…
Thanks for invalidating all theists everywhere with that demonstration.
Yes… I’m sure all theists everywhere would happily endorse me as their spokesman.
And you’re clearly not out to invalidate theism on any pretext whatsoever, no matter how flimsy.
Invalidating theism requires no pretext.
No one needs to invalidate theism. It falls apart under the weight of its own bull. It’s losing ground in every first world country and only gains momentum in impoverished countries. Where it does considerable amounts of harm by not supporting things like condoms.
But I’d be happy to invalidate any particular mechanism people use to spread this mind virus.
I know plenty of atheists who’ve made such statements and statements even more absurd than those.
Of course, I also know intelligent atheists who generally present better arguments and better logic than these. Just as I’ve met Christians who seem incapable of forming a coherent logical statement, and Christians who excel at rational thinking.
Religion or lack thereof doesn’t determine intelligence or logical coherence.
Such statements, or this specific statement? Cause this specific statement (“It’s a scientific fact that science disproves god”), is of course wrong. Anyone making this exact statement would be demonstrating a misunderstanding of what a scientific fact is, and what kind of concept god is.
Fortunately most people who are heard saying this never actually said this.
There are statements which can very easily appear to be this statement if you’re not careful about parsing what you read.
For example, a real atheist might say it is a fact that science has disproved statements by holy books or religious authorities, calling into question the reliability of their pronouncements on an unseen god. The second statement could easily be mistaken for the first, but it is not the same statement.
A real atheist might say science has removed the need for the god hypothesis by discovering better explanations for the things god was made up to explain. This true statement could easily be misread as the absurd statement it is often misread as.
So have you seen atheists make statements that you categorize as being like this one, or have you actually heard any atheists say this.
He’s criticizing fundamentalist atheists. Instead of joining in the criticism, you implicitly defend them. That’s irrational.
A rational atheist would oppose irrationality regardless of whether the person believed in God or not.
I agree with you and not Otis…I don’t know any atheist who would claim Science disproves the existence of any god. Proving a negative has issues. I’d add that this article is transference. I have encountered many Christians who are guilty of everything on this list. Most atheists I know are much better acquainted with the bible than your average Christian (that’s how I became an atheist). On the other hand, Christians cherry pick which portions of the bible are “real” and which are metaphorical. Anyway, bottom line; this is a very poorly written article and uses the traditional vehicle of transference to make it’s argument.
Most of what you said fulfills all that the author just said.
although I do agree that this article should have been about “people” in general. I would like to disagree with you. I have had many, and I mean many, atheist try and tell me that science has proven that god does not exist. For me this usually ends my part of the conversation with them because if they believe that they obviously do not know how science works…but it has been said. Case in point, Otis underneath me and his wonderful words.
Quote:
Atheists typically don’t claim anything to 100% certainty, and are open to new evidence on these matters.
Are you 100% certain of this?
Hahaha….
Of course they do…I’ve talked to literally dozens and dozens who do.
Seen atheist do the same thing.
From the looks of these comments we need a couple more added to the list.
10. Straw men arguments–
Claim from Christian: “The naturalist worldview cannot account for objective evil”.
Straw man argument response from atheists: “So you think atheists can’t be moral then?”
Uhh, that’s not what I said at all.
Or in the case of this article, “[oh so you] believe you [and Christians] are infallible and these ONLY apply to people of the opposite viewpoint. Fail.”
11. Knowing the difference between a necessary and sufficient condition.
My response would probably be: First we need to define “objective evil” then we can explore what may or may not apply in the natural world. As an atheist, I would never respond in the way you stated but I am sure there are some who would. As I said earlier, there are jerks..theist and atheist alike.
On #11, I have never heard of this but I’m not sure how it addresses whether or not there is sufficient evidence to claim a god exists. Maybe we could discuss that more.
Hey Argus. Sure we can discuss this more. I am happy to discuss anything with another atheist respectfully.
Let’s start with “objective evil”. Objective evil is something that is evil no matter where you are, and no matter what period of time it is. A clear case example of this is torturing babies for fun. All sane individuals acknowledge THIS ACT IS evil. In talking about this, it’s not “I THINK it’s wrong”–that would make it subjective because that would focus on the individual/subject (what they “THINK”) and NOT on the act itself. To say something about the act itself (“That act IS EVIL!!”) is an objective claim. I will leave it at that for now. If it’s still nebulous, let me know and I can expound on it more.
#11 The difference between “necessary” and “sufficient” is the direction of the logical arrow
If you have A is SUFFICIENT for B it means that every time you have A you will have B, without exception:
A ⇒ B
If you have A is NECESSARY for B it means that every time you have B you will have A, without exception:
A ⇐ B
Examples:
So as an example of A being sufficient for B, it is correct to say that every time you have a human you have a mammal, and the assertion that “being a human is sufficient for being a mammal” would be true. By contrast, it is not correct to say that every time you have a mammal you have a human. There are many other mammals that are not humans. So the assertion “being human is necessary for being a mammal” would be false
Being a mammal is a NECESSARY condition for being human (i.e. while all mammals are not humans, all humans are mammals). But being a mammal is NOT a SUFFICIENT condition for being human Being a mammal does not guaranteee that one is a human. There are mammals that are not human.
Ok so what does this have to do with conversations with atheists? I have had countless encounters with atheists that say things like, “there is not one shred of evidence of God”, or “there is no proof of God whatsoever”. I’m sure you have seen, heard, or even made a similar claim, correct?
The problem here with statements like this is an inherent assumption that the scientific method of experimentation and observation is a NECESSARY condition for gaining knowledge or proof from “evidence”.
“Science” (i.e. the scientific method of experimentation and observation) is SUFFICIENT to gain knowledge, but not NECESSARY to gain knowledge. In other words, there are some things we know and can know that cannot be proven scientifically. There are at least 4 different ways other than the scientific method to gain knowledge:
1) Moral Truth: Science cannot prove that rape is evil. While it is possible to demonstrate, for example, that there are negative physical or psychological effects of rape, there is no scientific test that can prove it is evil. Science can describe how the natural world is, but moral truth carries an “oughtness” (how thingsshould be) about it that goes beyond what merely is.
2) Logical Truth: Consider the statement “Science is the only way to really know truth.” How could you prove that statement by science? It is actually self-refuting because there is no scientific test you could use to prove that it is true! Science cannot prove logic to be true because it assumes and requires logic in order for it to work.
3) Historical Truth: Science cannot prove that Barack Obama won the 2008 United States presidential election. There is no scientific test we could perform to prove it. We could have an investigation if we wanted to confirm that he did actually win, but the method for proving historical truths is different from testing scientific truths since historical truths are by nature non-repeatable.
4) Experiential Truth: Science cannot prove that your spouse loves you. When asked why so-and-so loves you, you may cite precedent (times when their behavior demonstrates their love for you) but this is a particular type of historical truth. There is no scientific test that can confirm a lifetime of experience of knowing a person.
This means that although “science” is SUFFICIENT to gain knowledge/truth, it is NOT NECESSARY for knowledge/truth. Necessity excludes other methods or possibilities, sufficiency does not.
I believe there is ample “evidence/proof” of God through these other means of knowledge/truth.
Hope this helps. Let me know if you have any questions
We agree that torturing babies is immoral based on our shared morality that evolved within our species. My point is that there does not exist anything outside human consensus that a thing is good or bad or immoral or moral. I have already stated that I do see morality as subjective but it can be derived from objective facts. If you were to ask me why torturing babies is immoral, I could use objective facts to demonstrate why it is so rather than just labeling it some word (“EEEVIL!”)
Thus far you have given some reasons why you are convinced that a god COULD exist. You have not provided any evidence that a god does/must exist. Until such time as such evidence becomes available, the most reasonable position by default is atheism.
Argus, you said, “We agree that torturing babies is immoral…”>>>Yes we both agree torturing babies is immoral. HOWEVER, you said, “…torturing babies is immoral BASED ON our shared morality that EVOLVED within our species.”>>>This is where we disagree. First, you are confusing epistemology with ontology. Epistemology deals with HOW we came to know something (i.e. parents told me, teachers, culture, television, etc.). Ontology deals with studying the NATURE OF something (it usually answers the question ‘what is…’).
A quick example would be 2 x 2 = 4
Epistemology is the study of HOW a child found out 2 x 2 = 4
Ontology is the study of WHY 2 X 2 = 4
This example was merely given for the purpose of clarifying the difference between EPISTEMOLOGY and ONTOLOGY (nothing more). The bottom line is atheists can ‘theorize about HOW we know torturing babies for fun is wrong’, but ‘atheism provides no immaterial objective standard’ as to ‘WHY torturing babies for fun is wrong.
You said, “I do see morality as subjective but it can be derived from objective facts. If you were to ask me why torturing babies is immoral, I could use objective facts to demonstrate why it is so…” >>> This is known as the “is-ought fallacy”. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Is%E2%80%93ought_problem
You can’t go from DESCRIPTIVE statements (e.g. “sentient beings feel pain”) to PRESCRIPTIVE (“sentient beings OUGHT not feel pain from another…”) without assuming PURPOSE. But remember, if atheism is true, there is NO ULTIMATE meaning, value, or PURPOSE to human life.
Before I post any evidence for God I need to know whether you agree with the following or not:
“Science” (i.e. the scientific method of experimentation and observation) is SUFFICIENT to gain knowledge, but not NECESSARY to gain knowledge. In other words, there are some things we know and can know that cannot be proven scientifically.
If you disagree with that, then we are going to have a hard time communicating because you are going to be very dismissive of anything I bring to the table.
I will wait for you to respond to what I have addressed because I don’t want this discussion to become more cumbersome than it has to be.
All the best…
I’d love to see this part of the thread continue. Partly because I see James’ logic as overwhelming, therefore I’d like to see an equally (or more) intelligent counter argument, so I can see if James’ one is robust or if it contains some flaw that I can’t spot. James, if you are going to the CVM ‘Gathering’ event, or live near Notts, I’d love to buy you a drink and attempt to poke holes in your argument 🙂
Hey Bobbins. One of these days I’ll be able to travel more and go to gatherings like that. I am pretty grounded right now. I live in California, am putting my daughter through private school, and my wife through nursing school. Do you use Facebook at all? If so, look up my page WWJD – Defenders of Christ.
I have to respond to this in kind….
Not only are these all applicable to Christians, I would say more so in some regards. I’ve heard more outrage at Atheists and how we are baby eaters, or responsible for Hitler or other atrocities from the mouths of Christians on the attack, way more so than when Atheists bring up the same facts. Most often I find that it is in response to something said by Christians that most of those comparisons with the Crusades and such are made.
Asking questions in a line of questioning leading to a self realized conclusion is one of the best and tried methods of persuasion. The Socratic Method I do believe, and it is a powerful tool in any thinking person’s tool belt.
You use blanket terms for your faith with terms like Christian, where there are so many sects of Christianity and every sect broke off because of differing opinions on Scripture. I think that is more of an Intellectual dishonesty than saying your Baptist or Catholic. Since I don’t know your denomination, it’s fine for me to blanket you, but take some credit for your faith.
As for attacking morality, I had to have a debate in University on Atheists lacking Morals. Do you think that was brought up by other Atheists? I hear so much from Christians on how Atheists have no ethics or morals. There are way more Christian hating Atheists pages on FB than Atheists hating Christians, and from a religion based on tolerance and love, that’s sad.
And speaking of Generic catchphrases, saying the same thing for 2000 years is pretty generic, ” God works in mysterious ways” and ” It’s all in God’s plan” are examples of those.
Just because a quote from an Atheist is made in jest, does not mean there is no truth to said quote. I do agree with the sentiments of Christians not believing in Zeus or Apollo or Jupiter or Thor, but believing in Yahweh/Jehovah. The lack of evidence for Zeus or Apollo is strong and unquestioned in the minds of most Christians, and the same goes for all deities for Atheists, so there is a lot of truth that was said in jest.
A high percentage of Atheists have converted from religions, I being one of that statistic know for a fact that we do criticize our beliefs. If we didn’t we wouldn’t have turned away from religion and to Atheism.
Most people reading this could probably recognize pretty quickly that these nine can apply to Christians as well as Atheists depending on how one is arguing their point. The difference is that many Atheists I’ve encountered act like only Christians are guilty of any of these. That because they’re Atheist they automatically hold the intellectual high ground and that the Christians they talk to are uninformed Sheeple who’ve never thought critically about their faith. The point is showing that Atheists can and more often than they realize guilty of the same things
Isn’t it funny how Christians always say atheists do these things more, but atheists will always say Christians do them more? Maybe if both sides stopped pointing fingers, it would be easier to have a real conversation.
To answer those 9 points:
1) I watch many things about religion, like, Jesus Camp, damn that is scarier than Rosemary’s Baby ever was. The more theist material I peruse the stronger my anti-theist position becomes.
2) Not true, there are plenty of both atheists and theists much smarter than I will ever be. However, there are plenty of people out there that just plainly are stupid, like anyone that believes if women drive they will have internal problems, (as was stated by an Imam), or the absolutely stupid comments from people that hey, we are in 2014 … the world is 2014 years old? Frankly, that just hurts. I am a good person regardless and I always try to follow the quote, “Beyond race, creed and religion, always remember we are human first.” – I don’t remember where I got the quote from though.
3) Nope, I may get frustrated because arguing a point with someone who’s answer to everything is, “there’s this book” is frustrating, or that tells me a 2000 year old book written by neo-neanderthals is more believable than the works of Charles Darwin is absurd. It is usually the other way around, just look at every argument with Muslims, always ends with them yelling, always!
4) OK, this point is just stupid! And, truth be told, again, it is the other way around; you’re description for “our” words describes to a ‘T’ the fundamental principal behind religious faith, the idea of, “These words are like verbal placebos” <– religious faith.
5) I deliver many questions like "how can your god allow suffering?", and "if your god exists show me proof?" The reason for the questions is because I don't know the answer!?! Nobody expecting a serious answer asks a question to which they already have all the knowledge on. If you want me to believe your god exists I will need way more than faith, I am incapable of pure blind faith. I ask the question because I want to hear an answer from someone in a position to answer? Seems a simple enough concept to me?
6) Nope, I do not attack people verbally like that, I will admit, there are plenty on both sides that do just that. And I have called stupid people stupid, but that's just an observational description based on really stupid statements. And yet again, most of the time it is frustrated theists that cannot answer our simple questions that devolve to name-calling.
7) Hmmm … interesting point but … wrong. I quote people like Dawkins, Hitches, Russell, etc., because they are often better debaters than myself and frankly, way smarter; they have made points that to me seem valid, doesn't make them so, simply put, they are quotes to prove a point, irregardless of ones agreement of them. As to the comment "You're an atheist when it comes to Zeus. Atheists just go one god further." How is that a joke? By who's definition? To me it is a very valid and accurate statement? And, it is absolutely true?! So label it however you will, the statement stands on it's own merit – and [that] is what a quote is supposed to do.
8) Hmmmm … I get the strong feeling that your article was written by a strong theist because … again, that form of argument is often what we hear from theists. If I make a blanket statement like, "Jesus never existed", I will often cite it with references to professionals that present backup evidence, or I will state that there is no proof for argument x. Jesus existing is a good example, there is much debate amongst historians like Bart Erman and others on that subject, I personally do not believe he ever existed since there is not a single direct reference to his existence period, the Romans in all the loads of reference documents they left never once make direct mention of this "person" that made such waves, anyways, argument for another day.
9) This statement I agree with 100%, " most people in our society aren’t won over by reasoned, rational arguments" I don't know about advertising, I would say most people just are not won over- we sit on our positions firmly. As for critiquing my own beliefs? Is that a reasonable assumption to make? I am not afraid to state my position in any way; I was born into a Catholic house, went to a Catholic school attended mass at least once a week, even served as an alter boy for a while … but, I [never] was a believer, I did all that because it was expected of me. I am an atheist because I cannot believe, there just is no credible evidence to give me a reason to believe and I would hope against all odds that if a god were to exist it would not be that which is described in either the bible or Qur'an, that is an utterly horrible figure, a nightmare being that would without a doubt revel in the destruction of mankind, it is fortunate that being only exists in the minds of a few devout followers and nowhere else.
As a follow up, I do not believe that many, if any, of the higher ups in the Catholic church are actual believers either, I think many are just opportunistic power hungry dictatorial wannabes. The reality is, if they were true believers would they not recognize that they would be on the fast track to their own hell for the crimes they have committed or allowed to be commited? The rapes, sodomy, greed, avarice to name a few. Go ahead and justify the excessive opulence of the Vatican? I dare ya? If even one child starves while the king of thieves sits on his throne in the Vatican city, then they all have committed a sin by their own definition, and do so daily. I do seem to remember there being that comment, something about the eye of a needle and a rich man? Oh, who could have said it! I wonder … *tapping finger* – hey? don't mock me … it's your book!
P.s.: Sorry for the long post.
Much of what we read was evidenced thousands of years ago…so we do have to have faith that what they witnessed was true and reliable. It’s the same with atheism which has to trust that their position is a reasonable one since they cannot prove that God does not exist. I understand Richard Dawkins has had this struggle and now considers himself to be agnostic. Some former atheists such as Peter Hitchens have even come back to believe in God so I think it’s more of an emotional decision based on difficulties in people’s lives that actually lead them into atheism in the first place. They say it’s a lack of evidence but perhaps it’s more to do uncertainty in some people’s lives that cause them to reject a belief in God’s existence.
“Much of what we read was evidenced thousands of years ago…so we do have to have faith that what they witnessed was true and reliable”
Except that there’s not a single historical corroboration for the sun being stopped for Joshua’s battle, an earthquake when Jesus died on the cross, the Israelites being slaves in Egypt and their exodus, etc. No geological evidence of a global flood, etc.
I have no problem with you saying you believe SOME of the bible is historically accurate, but there’s a lot that’s also contradictory or clearly fable. (e.g. God limiting man’s life span to 120 years, when Jeanne Calment lived to 122)
Dawkins is still very much an atheist, as are ALL agnostics. That’s a misunderstanding of the words, or fear of being labeled atheist for negative connotations. It’s just like being apolitical. Christopher Hitchens would be more correctly identified as an anti-theist.
An anti-theist would obviously be actively opposed to all religion. Most atheists only get rankled by fundamentalists who think the Bible is inerrant, deny scientific evidence without understanding it, etc.
I’m actaully reading Peter Hitchens’ book now, as well as Seth Andrews’ “De-Converted: A Journey from Religion to Reason”. The latter more accurately reflects my journey, as I only began to accept my atheism in the past six months, after 34 years as an evangelical. What I’m more curious about now is the nature of BELIEF. I could no more believe in Yahweh now than I could in unicorns, no offense intended. So I’m curious how Peter was able to believe again, and what gives us the ability to believe.
Some commentators believe that the earth slowed down for Joshua to lengthen the day and there seems to be evidence from some scientists that there is a “missing day”. Of course much of what you read is written in the language of appearance such as when we talk about sunrises and sunsets. Earthquakes fit in the scheme of naturalism and I see you no problem that the earth could shake while Jesus was on the cross causing also the curtain to rip in the temple. These are just a few possibilities and more and more archaeology is finding evidence of many of the biblical sites that confirm scripture. But, as I said, we have to trust the writers of the book that they gave an honest observation of what they saw, what God did in history and so forth.
“Some commentators believe that the earth slowed down for Joshua to lengthen the day ”
These commentators obviously have little knowledge of geo and astral physics, or they would realize that such a dramatic and sudden change in the velocity of the earth would cause cataclysmic events to occur which would in all probability result in the cessation of all intersting life upon the globe.
“and there seems to be evidence from some scientists that there is a “missing day”.”
Really? Could you please point out some peer-reviewed scientific publications that present such evidence??
“Earthquakes fit in the scheme of naturalism and I see you no problem that the earth could shake while Jesus was on the cross causing also the curtain to rip in the temple. ”
The “Hey it could conceivably have happened so lets say it did happen” method is NOT the way evidentiary history works.
“archaeology is finding evidence of many of the biblical sites that confirm scripture.”
I’ve found out that there is actually a state in the U.S. called Kansas. I guess that makes “The Wizard of Oz” non-fiction. There’s also a city called London in England, which validates the historical truth of the Harry Potter books.
You know, sometimes it seems as though Christians would insist the Bible was completely factually accurate even if it told them that the earth was flat. Oh wait . . .
“there seems to be evidence from some scientists that there is a ‘missing day'”
Citations and “evidence”, please, because there’s not a single historical corroboration. (I find it curious how dismissive Christians are of evidence when it’s for an old earth or evolution, but how readily they accept it for their pre-arrived conclusions.) And please don’t give me the overcast/sunset/sunrise stuff. What it says in English is plain and clear. If we’re going to start muddling things away from the words fundamentalists claim are the literal choice of Yahweh, then I would ask if you’re familiar with the work of Bart D. Ehrman because you can’t have it both ways. The bible is either true but filled with errors, or “inerrant” and then demonstrably false.
P.S.- Despite being an atheist, I’m actually just fine with non-fundamentalist Chrsitianity. Please excuse any perceived undue hostility in my post, if I’ve spoken out of turn about your beliefs. I don’t know you to be a fundamentalist, but I kind of assumed. Apologies if that offended you, truly.
Okay. Apology accepted. Some skeptics do seem to display a fundamentalist tendency in their militancy for atheism. I’m associated with a Calvinist denomination and there are varying degrees by its members how they see the Bible and Science and in which they place greater or lesser authority. I was educated in a public school so I am familiar with both sides of the issue.
And I agree with you, the earthquakes fit into a naturalist point view. The problem is that there are surviving records of ancient earthquakes going back even further, but not a single mention of any for decades around the time of Jesus’ supposed crucifixion. (For the record, while I find the bible to be a very suspect source of anything historically accurate, I do tend to suspect that Jesus was an actual person.)
Honest observation is one thing, reasonable interpretation is quite another. They interpreted what they saw in the context of their beliefs. If they were Satanists then Satan would have caused the earth to quake and the curtain to be torn. It is not what God did that they wrote about, they filtered what they saw through their existing beliefs, and wrote about what they believed God did.
People’s fear of uncertainty drives them to find meaning in meaningless things. A missing day? The calendar has been messed with countless times over the centuries. A missing day in biblical times having any meaning at all is absurd — unless you are a storyteller with an agenda.
An evangelist recently told me that we have to consider the bible and god’s word in the context of the audience God was talking to. If that doesn’t make a reasonable person say: “What the hell?” I’d be astounded. Why can’t (or won’t) God give us instructions within the context of OUR lives? Is he unable? Unwilling? Unreasonable?
I vote for unreasonable, and that is the basis of my atheism. It is simply not reasonable to believe in the god of the bible. (Yes, I have read it.) Other gods may possibly exist, (although I believe it is extremely unlikely) but not that one.
A ha ha ha ha ha ha! You don’t cite any evidence, nor any scientists. And what evidence could possibly establish that a “missing day” happened on a particular day thousands of years ago?
Yes, a non-Christian can accept that earthquakes happen. But that an earthquake happened in the city of Jerusalem on a particular day approx 1980 years ago? Show us the evidence for that. And the earthquake opening a bunch of tombs, and resurrecting the dead, so that zombies walked the streets of Jerusalem? Sorry, once again I will need to see the evidence for that.
In short, please stop pretending that your wishful thinking is an acceptable substitute for actual scientific evidence.
Funny Screen Name.
The “missing day” claim is a fabrication initially made by a man whose claim to fame was “working at NASA” but in actuality just did a short stint of contract work in an unrelated department to the one he claims found evidence for this apparent lost day. NASA scientists have since denied ever even working on this, showing that the claim was a lie: here’s a reference for that: http://www.snopes.com/religion/lostday.asp
I already know about that.
Huh? Are you saying you already knew that the thing you said earlier wasn’t true? Then why did you say it?
Except that there’s not a single historical corroboration for ……, an earthquake when Jesus died on the cross.
I hate to break up your beliefs but I read in the newspaper only a short while ago that scientists have proved an earthquake did happen around the time of Jesus being crucified. I think (and im going to be ridiculed) but it was the Dailymail. Google it perhaps?
That’s fine, and though the Daily Mail generally invites ridicule, I found a story covering it from NBC, as well.
There’s still plenty of doubt in my mind however, because the bible is still so clearly wrong or fable in so many other places.
Jesus – The dates for a census, Herod reigning in Judea and Quirinus governing Syria are still all wrong. I’m not saying Jesus didn’t exist- in a way, the desperate stretching of historical fact and pains the authors went to (the silly, and counter-productive, order of a census demanding people relocate to be counted) in order to make Jesus fit the Old Testament prophecies is the greatest proof he was real.
And it’s not just Jesus- I’ve already mentioned Joshua claiming the god stopped the sun, when we now know the entire rotation of the earth would necessarily have halted. There’s also no evidence for the Hebrews ever being enslaved in Egypt, nor their exodus. Israeli archaeologists would love to find this, but none exists. The Flood- don’t even get me started.
If you read it with an impartial eye, the bible is as clearly myth as the Norse gods or Greek pantheon, but with the added problem of being self-contradictory.
Oh by the way, youtube what are unicorns, there is an interesting video on there. Unicorns are Rhinos by the way. Its interesting how language is adapted throughout time and how we intrepretate stories through our language(s);
Would you have preferred I said the Tooth Fairy? 😛 lol
Not really, the burden of proof is yours, since believers make the extraordinary claim of god. Richard Dawkins’ “struggle” is that of definition. No one can proof that something doesn’t exist, but one can devise tests based on predictions of what would happen when something exist.
And evidenced thousands of years ago. Sorry, the things that happened in the bible. Ha. And of course your holy book is the right one, and not any others’.
All brilliant! Especially: “King of thieves.” Thank you, I love it.
Some of the points are good and valid, and are certainly true about some atheists, but they are also true about Christians, and about Muslims, and about almost any religious denomination.
However most of the examples provided are either strawman arguments (ie. you deliberitely fabricated poor arguments that were easy to tear down) or just not representative of most sensible atheists in the discussion. Many atheists on online forums joke around and say ridiculous things that they don’t actually believe just for fun.
Also, judging by the way you write, you are a Christian, and I just read your article. Looks like #1 is disproved 😉
I totally agree with #7 though. I know too many people who think that quotes hold universal authority, but they really don’t.
Most on both either side are windbags, I’d say
1. You only read/watch what you already agree with
Says someone arguing for people who get their truth from one primary source (the bible) and actively try to ban, outright ignore, denounce and demonize anything that agrees with it. I don’t think anything more needs to be said on this – a person defending religion claiming confirmation bias in others is laughable.
2. “People who disagree with me are stupid!”
No, people who are stupid are stupid. When you learn how to determine ‘proof’ and recognize ‘reality’ then, the reason you read large amounts of things based on or relying upon ‘faith’ by it’s own self-identification is simply a way to avoid wasting your time. Faith, revelation and emotional wishes are not how one determines what is real. Anyone claiming as much earns the identification of ‘stupid’.
3. You get angry with those who disagree.
If I get angry with a religious person, it is because they are trying to compel myself or others to action based solely upon their unsubstantiated beliefs. There are valid reasons to be angry with someone. You get angry with someone when they attempt to or are in the process of harming you or the things you value. Many religious ‘ideas’ that are based on nothing more than religious beliefs are harmful if acted upon, therefore many religious beliefs when acted upon righteously inspire indignation.
4. You use words like ‘rational’ and ‘logical’ and ‘free-thinking’ to describe yourself.
This very inclusion is in itself an attempt at illogical demonization. If the word fits and it’s use is justified by way of the behavior of those using it in the process of identifying themselves, then they have earned the right to use it. To include it in a list of examples ‘why’ someone is intellectually dishonest is in itself intellectually dishonest. Evaluation of anyone self-describing by those terms must be done in each specific case before drawing conclusions about how accurately the words describe them, their reasoning or their thinking. To say anything otherwise is a hasty generalization and constitutes proof of nothing but your own bias and prejudices.
5. You deliver statements as though they are questions.
I’ll actually agree with you on this one. Starting out an argument by making a statement which includes a concession to a religious premise is giving sanction to that premise as a plausibility. The onus is on the religious person to prove their premise – to even acknowledge such a premise when it hasn’t even remotely been established by way of evidence is just self-defeating and does constitute intellectual dishonesty – to one’s self. If you properly recognize that mystic premises are absurd, even remotely conceding the premise to make a point is equally absurd.
6. You use ad-hominem attacks
As I already pointed out, #4 on your list is a form of ad hominem attack by way of a hasty generalization. But this one falls back on the pot calling the kettle black. The very concept of demonization was invented by religion. And the religious have mastered the ad hominem far greater than any non-religious person could every desire.
7. You quote famous atheists, without being able to back up their arguments.
I will somewhat agree with you here as well. If you are going to evoke the argument of another and you can’t elucidate on why it is true, you are no different than a religious fundamentalist quoting bible verses without proof that they are true. Giving up an unsubstantiated belief just to follow the words of someone else, true or not, objective or not, is no better than blindly following mystical superstitions on nothing but faith.
As far as the names you mention, Dawkins has some good comments occasionally, and I like a few of Russell’s quotes by themselves. I consider Hitchens a joke. Hitchens vacillated through more ‘isms’ than you can list in a short summary, experimented with all sorts of drugs, believed all sorts of nonsense, then we are supposed to take his words as great wisdom when he suddenly converts to frothing atheism? Spare me.
I tend to enjoy the perspectives of people like Douglas Adams myself. He had an absolute artistic genius at taking the absurdities of unsubstantiated beliefs of all varieties and using outright absurdity to make the idiocy of those beliefs blatantly obvious. “It’s like a puddle waking up one morning and saying…”
8. You use generic catch-all phrases which show your poor hand
Again, I would be prone to agree with you, but only in the context of the examples you have given. (the two you list are just false speculation and reverse the onus anyway – it is not up to science to ‘disprove’ the existence of God and it is should not be the responsibility of anyone to say Jesus didn’t exist. It is the onus of the religious to ‘prove’ God and ‘prove’ that Jesus did in fact exist – neither which has been done anything remotely close to objectively satisfactory to anyone with an ounce of critical thinking skill)
9. You never really critique your own beliefs.
I’m going to disagree with this one, but for not quite an obvious reason. Someone who is properly rational does not have ‘beliefs’. The dictionary (or any one worth it’s toast) defines belief as ‘something presumed to be true without proof’. A rational person will not presume something to be true without proof.
Assumptions are necessary to exist – as limited beings, we are incapable of knowing everything that would be necessary to be absolutely certain about every single thing we interact with. But assumptions should always be treated as assumptions. Anything we cannot say absolutely should be always seen as something that cannot be said absolutely. (that is not to say there are not things that can be said absolutely, such as ‘existence exists’ – prima facie concepts are not assumptions)
But in making assumptions and considering some assumptions to be more complete and accurate than others, one must always re-evaluate the criteria used to arrive at those assumptions. (Self-evident principles do not need to be re-evaluated)
Now for the follow-up comment….
10 signs you might be mired in religious absurdity
1. You don’t even know the content of your own religious texts as much as your detractors.
I cannot begin to tell you how many (christian) religious people I have encountered who don’t even know the kinds of absurd things which are written in the old and new testament. Some know a few of them such as a man being swallowed by a fish, another man slaying a giant, sticks turning into snakes, etc. But some of the passages are offensive, profane and anti-human!
The bible is full of altruistic pap that demonizes the rich and makes it sound like Marx plagiarized it to write his Critique on the Gotha Program. Not too far from the often quoted passages on transgenderism and homosexuality are other rules on wearing two types of fibers in your clothing, planting different crops in the same field, allowing different types of animals to graze together, even down to how to salt your meat and oil your grain when you bring it as a sacrifice! Who knew God was a galloping gourmet?
There is one passage where a whore revels in reminiscing about her younger days when men who were ‘hung like donkeys’ and orgasmed like horses used to fondle her tender breasts. Yet another where two daughters get their father drunk and rape him so they can get knocked up! Still another where God allegedly sicks a pack of bears on a bunch of kids for teasing another kid. Really sick stuff!
Most Christians don’t even know there is more than one version of the 10 commandments in the bible! And the one that really cracks me up is when a woman starts trying to tell me what the bible says and how people should behave or act without knowing that even the new testament says they should ‘never teach or hold authority over a man’ and should cover their heads and ‘be silent’.
2. You regularly try to accuse people challenging your beliefs by claiming logical arguments while spewing nothing but logical fallacies
You name it, I’ve seen it in the way of fallacies from religious people claiming to be logical and reasonable. Ad antiquitatem (appeal to tradition), ad verecundiam (appeal to authority) and ad populum (appeal to consensus) tend to be the most frequent in regard to belief itself but secundum quid (hasty generalization) and just about every type of associative fallacy imaginable also rank up there. And let’s not forget demonization in general (ad hominem). Demonization was invented by religions after all.
3. The most ‘rational’ argument you have was trounced by a fictitious, notoriously stupid cartoon character
The most rational argument ever made in support of faith based, religious notions is the inevitable invocation of Pascal’s Wager. To quote Homer Simpson: “Suppose we’ve chosen the wrong god. Every time we go to church we’re just making him madder and madder!”
4. Your see your religion and the bible as eternal while ignoring just how diluted, manipulated and selectively parsed it has become
From the council of Nicea, to multiple reformations, to the forgotten and ignored verses (See #1), to changed rules, to outright hypocrisies, etc. the religious and the religions tend to manipulate the ideas of the religion itself to suit any given age and meet any given following. For example, today’s Christians conveniently forget the manipulations of religion in the past. While they enjoy the benefits of free religious expression, they forget the nationalization of churches that led to the enlightenment and the mass exodus to the Americas that eventually led to the American Revolution. While they denounce other religions as brutal, they conveniently forget the crusades, multiple ethnic cleansings, the inquisition, the witch trials, even modern day misbehavings of groups like the Westboro Baptist Church and abortion clinic bombers. (they’ll hold all of Islam accountable for the actions of a dozen extremists that hijack 4 airplanes, but then claim Christianity is not responsible for any number of whack jobs acting in the name of Christian beliefs)
Meanwhile, they claim we need to ‘return to religious values’ while celebrating pagan rituals on so-called Christian Holidays. Easter comes from the name of the goddess Esther. She was a fertility Goddess who was honored with symbols of fertility such eggs and rabbits. She was concubine to Tammuz (who was also allegedly killed and resurrected long before the mystery religions stole the idea to incorporate within Christian myths) and her feast day in spring included the eating of a pig to avenge the death of Tammuz who was slain while hunting boar. Christmas was moved half way around the calendar to a pagan festival including symbolism of trees and other greenery including but not limited to things like wreaths and sprigs of plants akin to holly and mistletoe. Yet we need to go ‘back’ to these diluted, watered down, manipulated, not even understood for what they were, what they are and what they should be belief systems by the so-called followers of them.
5. You think that it is the responsibility of science and non-mystic-believers to prove you wrong
This is simple burden of proof and technically is another form of fallacy (onus probandi). It amounts to someone who is not only making a claim, but premising all their other arguments upon that claim without even proving the first principle on which it relies. I sum this one up in short as follows:
Before you can use ‘because God said so’ as evidence, you must first:
1) prove God exists
2) prove God actually said it
and 3) Prove God was right
(and if you can do #3, then #1 and #2 aren’t really necessary anyway)
6. You say some really idiotic things without even realizing just how idiotic they are
I had two older, religious gentlemen in the same week say essentially the same thing to me a few months back. While defending their belief in God, in two completely separate and distinct conversations, and without any specific prompting to encourage it, they both essentially stated that ‘it is my fear of God’s reprisal that keeps me faithful to my wife’.
This is just one example (I could list many) and the sentiment was made in more than just the context of their marriage. (i.e. their God fearing nature is what they attribute to keeping them ‘good’ and well behaved) but in both cases the context was in regard to their marriage – again, unprompted by me. My response was to point out just how wonderful their wives must feel to know this. “yeah honey, I’m not faithful to you because I respect you, appreciate you and want to do right by you – I’m just afraid of that vindictive #$%(#@% up there in heaven!”
As I say, I could list many more examples (and have – they should do a prime time TV show akin to that one Bill Cosby rebooted with kids, call it “stupid things religious people say”)
7. You actually think evolution is false and Genesis is true
I’m sorry, but I have to include this one by itself. I can’t tell you how many exasperating conversations I have had with people who want to claim there is no proof to support evolutionary theory. Nah, there are literally millions of fossils in museums across the world, hundreds of thousands of experiments conducted, geological records up the wazoo, DNA evidence, etc. etc. etc. but none of it proves anything. Meanwhile, Christianity has what? One book, not even an original copy and a whole lotta people who are descended from other people that had guns and swords pointed to their heads telling them ‘believe this or die’ to support it.
In with Evolution, you can also include ‘You actually think Genesis is accurate and the world is only 6000 years old and was created in 6 days’. Yes, of course! And God is such a devious guy, he buried those millions of fossils all throughout the strata just to screw with archaeologists someday. And he made isotopes decay in such a manner as to make the just appear to be trillions of years old for the hell of it. And then he didn’t only put this extremely massive @#$($* bunch of stuff outside of earth’s immediate vicinity, but then he put the light between here and there in just such a way that it would only appear it has been travelling for millions of years. Yeah, that’s it! He’s just sneaky that way!
8. You have mastered selection bias
I know the original list comments on selection bias, but see #9 before you say I’m just pulling a “I know you are but what am I?” Faith based notions by definition have no proof. But in an increasingly secular society with at least some folks waking up to the reality around us, the demand for proof is becoming more necessary for old-school ‘beliefs’ and ‘belief systems’ (see #10). As human knowledge increases, many old superstitious notions become less and less plausible, and their fantastic nature more and more obvious. Many things that were only attempted to be explained by way of entirely arbitrary religious speculations are being explained by scientific examination and accumulation of knowledge.
Men used to think gods were in the rocks and the trees, but he cut down the trees and busted open the rocks and found no gods. So he described gods as deep in the forests, over the hills and across the seas. But he went into the forests, past the hills and sailed the seas and still did not find god there. So he said God was under the seas, in the skies and in the heavens themselves. But soon man explored under the seas, learned to fly the skies and built tools to peer into the heavens and still found no god. Even concepts like geo-centrism were perpetuated by religious ideologies. (not not have man be the purpose of the universe sorta defeats the purpose of most religious depictions of God)
And perhaps the best example of confirmation bias is the co-existence of over 5000 current mystic beliefs and belief systems just in our present time (this is not including those that have gone out of favor, been considered absurd over time or that died out with the civilizations that held them) – yet almost all of them think that their way is the only right way. Go figure!
9. Your ability to ‘project’ could make a psychologist’s career!
Psychological projection is attributing on others behaviors that you are guilty of yourself. It’s not simply a matter of hypocrisy, but is often used as a defensive mechanism even if it is not done as a consciously aware act. (politicians are infamous for this) It essentially comes down to blaming someone that either opposes you or stands in your way of the very behavior you are guilty of, often preemptively to distract from the fact you are just as guilty if not more-so of the same thing.
This includes things such as accusing the opposition of confirmation bias when the level to which you exercise such bias is profane in comparison.
10. You claim to be a victim whenever anyone expects you to substantiate your ideas with proof
I’ve noticed this as a growing trend lately, Christians, especially in America, claiming they are ‘under attack’ and being ‘persecuted. It was one such claim that led me to this post in the first place, someone posting a pie chart claiming atheists are prone to force their “beliefs” on others more than the religious.
Yet, the reality is, that religious ideas pervade our society to the point that they are taken for granted – or at least were. Yet people are now starting to re-examine things previously left to ‘faith’ and question them and the religious people don’t know what to do with themselves.
Still, America is still one of the free-est countries on the planet, still the most influential and powerful country on the planet, Christianity is the dominant religion on the planet as well as in the US, therefore Christian influence is still quite dominant in the US – yet the Christians are being persecuted???? Seriously?!?!?
On one final note, the subject of this piece is almost as absurd as the unsubstantiated beliefs that inspired it. For someone who supports ‘faith’ as a means to alleged knowledge and truth to talk of ‘intellectual honesty’ is kind of like a $5 whore giving a lecture on abstinence in-between tricks.
Some brief thoughts on your list:
1. Yup – this happens a lot
2. I’m sure this happens a lot too
3. Cute example. Don’t see how it trounces Pascal’s Wager however. The Wager is one piece of reasoning to suggest belief in a supreme deity can be justified logically. It doesn’t go much towards describing that deity. But on Pascal’s logic, a proper investigation is warranted.
4. Since you brought this one up, it would be great to have some examples. Perhaps we can stick to the Bible here – we can always tackle tradition another time.
5. Yup – this happens on both sides quite a lot
6. Gosh – that’s tragic! Yes – there are some really silly ideas floating around!
7.. There are many Christians who wouldn’t argue against evolution. The position you outline is just one position within Christian thinking.
8. “Faith-based definitions have no proof” This depends on your definition of faith. If faith is just a “blind leap”, then maybe. If it’s “a commitment based on evidence”, then no, this wouldn’t be accurate. Christianity is a falsifiable, evidence-based religion. It’s open to scrutiny across all the disciplines.
9. Yeah, this happens some times
10. This may happen too. But let the debate continue …
On your final note – your assumptions on the inspiration of the author aside – again I come back to what the Christian definition of faith is. It is a commitment to a position based on evidence that is open to scrutiny.
I enjoyed reading your list! We can go back and forth on this all day I suppose. There are many ‘Christian’ answers that other Christians aren’t OK with. From what I understand, it’s much the same way with Atheists and other religions too. The heart of the matter is the evidence for the positions that we hold. I would be more than happy to get into these a little more.
re: 3
It trounces pascal’s wager because of what I commented on in my second post, there are over 5000 religions currently in practice on the planet at this very moment. Even if you take pascal’s wager as proof (it is not, it’s a lame attempt at rationalizing an irrational principle of a non-evident arbitrary assertion), you still face a delimma. It is kind of like arguing against an a-mystic, a-theistic view by asking “well then how did the universe get here? Did it come from nothing?” To say ‘God created the universe’ just pushed the problem back one step unnecessarily. Well then what created God?
If your ‘reason’ for believing in ‘a’ religion is akin to Pascal’s wager, and religions rely on faith (i.e. acceptance as fact without proof) then no religion is logically better than any other. Any assertion, no matter how absurd is different than any other even if one seems more plausible than the others, more appealing than the others, etc. Without any proof, correlation is not causation. The fact that an arbitrary assertion resembles a reality does not make it a reality. Any arbitrary assertion with an equal lack of proof is equal in substance to any other.
So even if you can rationalize with a Pascal’s wager, you still face the delimma “then why religion X?”
I agree, Pascal doesn’t say which religion at all. Not with his Wager. But we must put the Wager in context with all of Pascal’s other reasoning. There’s no one single argument, no magic bullet for or against belief in God. But there is evidence. Pascal offers the Wager as one part in a cumulative apologetic for the Christian God (see Pensées for more).
Your cited example from Homer (Simpson!) doesn’t deal with the Wager effectively at all. It does present a challenge – “if God exists, which religion is true” – a challenge that Christians do have answers to. But Pascal didn’t offer his Wager as a defence to this challenge.
re: there is no magic bullet
Actually yes there is, in the ‘against’ column. To say there is no one single argument against belief in God is the same as saying there is no one single argument against alien visitation, the existence of Big Foot or the Loch Ness Monster or even little purple gnomes that live in our asses and come out at night to hide our car keys and wallets. Any arbitrary, ad hoc assertion can be made and applied to the same standard with equal legitimacy (none).
What makes an assertion legitimate and worthy of consideration is that it is real or represents real parameters of real world conditions. i.e. evidence.
I’d be curious to hear your one argument against belief in the Christian God. No one here is arguing for the existence of the Loch Ness Monster or Big Foot I think. A magic bullet at this point would send us all home.
re: no one here is arguing for….
They aren’t? They might as well be. But why is it my responsibility to argue ‘against’ a belief in the Christian God? Christians haven’t made the case for the existence of such a God, and you are free to believe whatever nonsense you wish to believe.
I will, however, argue against ‘tolerating’ nonsense simply because tradition and false notions of common courtesy say you ‘should’.
If someone makes a claim, they should be prepared to back it with solid, objective evidence. if they don’t, then they should be prepared to be ignored and even scoffed at if the claim is fantastically absurd enough.
As far as why I might mock and ridicule Christian beliefs and those who proselytize them specifically, the reasons are too numerous to list, but I will cover the top few for your satisfaction. First, look at the history of how Christianity came to be the world’s most dominant religion. Specifically, the long trail of blood behind it – holy wars, imperial conquests, subjugation of entire nations, inquisitions, witch trials, oppressive state religions, etc. Gee, if I could hold a gun to people’s heads or a sword to their throats, threaten them with torture on a rack or the destruction of their entire civilization, I could probably get a lot of people to agree with whatever I told them to agree with too!
Add to that the hypocrisy. Whether it be finger pointing now at Islam (see history-of-Christianity above) as a violent religion, crying ‘persecution’ simply because people are finally demanding evidence of Christian claims, or the on-going back-peddling any time science comes up with yet another discovery that proves yet another bible-based assumption to be complete nonsense, Christians are just yet one of many who’s ideas require magic juggling to keep even remotely plausible.
Religions, including Christianity also attack self esteem. They replace it with something I call ‘God esteem’. They tell men that they are worthless pieces of shit that are damned since birth unless they accept, embrace and follow the ideal, then tell them every evaluation they make must be made through the lens of the dogma. It’s not good unless it is good ‘according to God’. You shouldn’t do it unless it glorifies God. You are not valuable, unless you are pleasing to God. Meanwhile, no one can produce objective, unquestionable evidence of the existence of this God or even the validity of the alleged words of this non-provable God. (yet he is supposed to be everywhere! go figure) Thus the only means to know this ‘will of God’ is through the words of ‘other men’. How convenient.
It’s not! But as you said that is a magic bullet, one single argument against belief in God, I was just asking what that was. This debate has ensued for millennia. I was wondering what the one knock-down argument you were referring to was.
Agreed – to a point. I think I would say that someone ought to provide good reasons for his/her claims. Sometimes “solid” evidence is hard to come by, but there are plenty of good reasons so what we can believe beyond reasonable doubt.
I’m not going to argue against all the things done in the name of Christianity/religion. There have been very bad things done. Many of them profoundly un-Christian and out of keeping with what Jesus taught.
However, when we look further back in history, we see the explosion of a religion not when it was free to conquer and subjugate others, but when it was enslaved and restricted by a far stronger empire.
On the contrary, it was and is because we are of such incredible value that God the Father sent Jesus to this world. It was out of profound love and a deep commitment to restore a people he chose before the creation of the world that Jesus came, lived as a man, and died on a Roman cross.
You raise a really good point – why wouldn’t God make himself more obvious? Why wouldn’t he provide unquestionable evidence for his existence? Why does it seem like a matter of interpretation? My friend Ian wrote a really good two-part series on this matter – specifically looking at Miracles – on this blog earlier. Would really like to hear your thoughts on what he wrote.
Part I: http://www.cvm.org.uk/blog/demolition-squad/why-doesnt-god-do-incredible-miracles-today-part-i/
Part II: http://www.cvm.org.uk/blog/demolition-squad/why-doesnt-god-do-incredible-miracles-today-part-2/
Finally, thanks again for engaging. I appreciate it.
re: “magic bullet”
I didn’t say ‘magic bullet’, you did. There are many reasons not to believe in ‘God’ (besides the obvious, no proof), over 5000+ of them – the other versions of such belief(s). And again, I have no problem with someone’s beliefs until they try to proselytize them or otherwise use them as motive to action — and again, if people were content to keep their unsubstantiated and fantastic beliefs to themselves, there would be no religion.
re: “I’m not going to argue against all the things done in the name of Christianity/religion. [..] many of them profoundly un-Christian”
How convenient. The three monkey approach. Don’t talk about it, don’t dwell on it, pretend it didn’t happen. Yeah – that’s part of what I meant by “‘tolerating’ nonsense simply because tradition and false notions of common courtesy say you ‘should’. ”
Yet it was these very conquest oriented societies, as I pointed out — it was my reason for bringing it up — that have led Christianity to exist as the dominant religion. People were given little choice – believe it, adopt it, follow it or be tortured and killed! Great argument for it’s popularity!
Constantine launched the first major wars in the name of ‘Christianity’ – this was at about the same period of time Christianity really ‘took off’ – not a coincidence.
re: [On-the-contrary-sermon]
According to the ideal – and only if it’s true. Yet where’s the proof? (outside of what your bible says?)
I say again, it attacks and replaces self-esteem. For proof of such an assertion, ask any ‘Christian’ if they think their life (outside the church) would be better or worse if they hadn’t found the church. In that there is only one answer you ever get, I rest my case.
Still waiting to hear that one knock-down argument against Christianity. You have stated some objections that you have against faith, but I haven’t seen the one magic bullet (my phrase) that you claimed you have in the “’against’ column”.
On the terrible Christian history. Why would I argue for it? I can’t. It was terrible. Terrible things happen – I conceded that. I will talk about it. I will think about it. I will want to ensure it never happens again. But pointing out all the horrors done in the name of something doesn’t disprove the validity of the position, it just shows that some people are evil and do bad things. Anyone can kill someone in the name of something good, but that good thing doesn’t have to endorse it. Jesus certainly doesn’t condone violence in the slightest.
I think this issue does deserve more attention however. Instead of getting out of it – let’s talk about some more. Let’s look at the historical record and see if Christianity really is a religion of the sword, spread by force. Would a co-authored blog series on this work? I’m just throwing ideas out here … What are your thoughts?
If it’s proof of Jesus on a cross you’re after, there are Roman and Jewish sources – both with much to lose and nothing to gain from Jesus’ death/resurrection – that speak on the matter. A very brief intro can be found on that here: http://www.cvm.org.uk/blog/demolition-squad/the-historical-jesus/
No, you’re still ignoring the arguments against Christianity. I have given many. The main three:
1) it’s not proven and just one of many such absurdities world wide
2) it not only encourages, but praises mental blank-out
3) it has a demonstrated capacity to encourage people to do irrational things
Now we have two lists that can apply to multiple positions 🙂 Thanks for you comments. We’ve started a new series on The Bible, if you’re interested … http://www.cvm.org.uk/blog/demolition-squad/the-bible-part-one/
re: [Christian history] “I will want to ensure it never happens again.”
Yet in doing so, have you ever stopped to consider that the nature of the ideology and it’s reliance on ‘faith’ and arbitrary assertions of people alleging ‘revelations’ without evidence may in fact be causal to it happening in the first place?
When you put your hand in a fire and get burnt, you have three choices. Never put your hand in anything again because you might get burnt, understand that it is in the nature of fire to burn things and correct your behavior accordingly whenever handling fire or ignore that the two things are related and keep putting your hand in the flames.
“Yet in doing so, have you ever stopped to consider that the nature of the ideology and it’s reliance on ‘faith’ and arbitrary assertions of people alleging ‘revelations’ without evidence may in fact be causal to it happening in the first place?”
I would want to contend that on the definitions of ‘faith’ and ‘evidence’. The offer for a co-series looking at this further still stands.
The term ‘faith’ comes from latin fides and refers to a ‘duty to fulfill trust’ but has no context as to the basis for the trust. (i.e. it does not speak to trust built upon objective criteria, simply ‘trust’)
In this context, I use the term evidence to refer to objective criteria that can be reduced to first principles (prima facie or self-evident nature). i.e. something that is not built solely on conjecture, heresay, consensus, reputation, tradition, speculation, etc.
I mean this totally as a silly joke but I often respond to Pascal with “What if that god is CTHULU? AIIIEEE!” 🙂
I’m pretty sure Webster’s point was that Pascal offered his wager as an overlooking of this challenge. The entire thing is based on math which assumes only two options (belief in the christian god and nonbelief in the christian god each representing exactly 50%). As soon as you acknowledge that there is more than one god people might believe in, Pascal’s numbers fall apart.
You seem to be implying that Pascal answered the ‘why this god’ question somewhere else. Having read The Pensees and most of The Provential Letters, I am unaware of what you could be referring to. If you have time, could you maybe point me to where I could read this. I would be quite curious to see if the argument he makes elsewhere is one which retroactively affects the logic he uses in the wager. The core logic of Pascal’s Wager is explicitly based on only acknowledging the potential existence of one god. If Pascal himself admitted to considering other possibilities or stating reasons why he thought his religion was the right one, that alone wouldn’t change the basic premise of what he says in Pensee 233.
Here, Allah, Zeus, Thor, Elkunirsa, Danu, Baal, Molech, Quetzalcoatl and the thousands of other gods are crammed into one 50% slice along with the possibility of no god, and any deistic non-interventionist gods who aren’t in the business of rewarding or punishing people. All of these wildly divergant universes are lumped together, reduced to ‘nothing happens after you die, so you gain or lose nothing’, and represented as only one possible outcome which is arbitrarily declared to be exactly as likely as the one possibility that is declared to be the alternative.
If you understand what Pascal is saying, and understand what Homer is saying, it is inescapable that Homer’s wager defeats Pascal. If islam is right, then by continuing to practice christianity you really are making god madder every week. Imagine Pascal’s argument being modified to support islam, and suddenly the plot holes become much more obvious.
1. If you submit to Allah and islam turns out to be the right religion you will be infinitely rewarded.
2. If you do not submit to Allah and islam turns out to be the right religion you will be infinitely punished.
3. If you submit to Allah and islam doesn’t turn out to be the right religion then nothing happens after you die.
4. If you don’t submit to Allah and islam doesn’t turn out to be the right religion then nothing happens after you die.
5. So it is better to submit to Allah and become a muslim. After all, you stand to gain by worshiping Allah and lose by not. So it is the only reasonable choice.
As a person who is not a muslim you would take one look at this argument and immediately notice something missing. In your case, Jesus. As someone who knows that christianity has its own promises of reward and punishment, it would be clear to you that you do not stand to lose nothing by converting to islam. By worshiping the wrong god you’d just be pissing Jesus off more every week, potentially cutting yourself off from any rewards he might otherwise give you or even incurring some fiery punishment.
Once the wager is separated from association with something you associate yourself with you might notice something else that people always miss about Pascal’s reasoning. It is not an argument for the existence of god. He as much as says that arguing for the actual existence of god is pointless, impossible, and not what christians are supposed to do. The wager is an argument for faking belief in the existence of god based on a cost benefit analysis. It argues for lack of belief sucking up to what it doesn’t really believe in out of hope for rewards. Wouldn’t an all seeing god see right through this?
Weighing potential profits against potential losses is a good way to make some decisions, but not a great way to weigh truth claims. In the real wager gain and loss mean nothing. What you want does not affect the answer. What you are afraid of does not affect the answer. Either X is true, or X is not true.
The third and last screamingly obvious problem (there are a few hundred less obvious ones) with Pascal’s Wager is that anything can be said to exist. This does not automatically confer a 50% chance on every possibility. Some things which are not impossible are incredibly unlikely, but by Pascal’s logic anything we can’t see has exactly as much chance of existing as not existing.
And where do you get the impression Pascal did not say which religion with his wager? He repeatedly says which religion he is intending to defend (Pascal would be very disappointed to know there are protestants using his thing) within the text of his wager.
Within the original text of Pascal’s Wager, Pascal explicitly states that his intent in writing this is to defend this one specific religion. Then bases his justification of the necessity of wagering on specifically christian predictions about the afterlife. His stated reason why you can’t choose not to play this game is that Jesus is going to judge everybody, and thus everybody is compelled to bet “god” or “no god”. His advice to those who bet “god” is not to explore various religious traditions in hopes of finding god, but to immediately join the catholic church and start attending mass.
Pascal states an argument that could apply to islam as well as christianity, completely fails to notice this and says ‘this is an argument for christianity (well, catholicism) that demonstrates it is reasonable to believe in the christian god and unreasonable not to believe in the christian god’. To be fair, this sort of binary presentation of the choice makes sense coming from someone who lived in France in the 1600’s. Other gods just weren’t going to come up a lot. Those people who still repeat this long discredited argument in the 21st Century don’t really qualify for this excuse.
To start with, my copy of Pensées must be numbered differently from yours – so our references may be confused! (e.g. my copy has the Wager as ‘680’ – OUP, Anthony Levi, 1995)
I’m suggesting that Pascal offered the Wager as part of a broader apologetic for the Christian faith, and as such, should be taken in this light. The Wager is a wager for the Christian God, and whilst mathematical in formula, isn’t the only piece of the puzzle. The Wager does not deal explicitly with other Gods, or the supremacy of the Christian God. Pascal does that elsewhere.
Pascal himself states that there are at least five “proofs of religion”: (20) morality, doctrine, miracles, prophecies, and figures.”
Some examples (my titles):
Vs. Islam – (241) “Difference between Jesus Christ and Muhammad. Muhammad not foretold, Jesus Christ foretold.
Muhammad by killing. Jesus Christ by having his followers killed.
Muhammad by forbidding reading, the apostles by commanding reading.”
On eyewitness testimony – (448) “No one has ever had himself martyred for miracles which claimed to have seen; for, in the case of those which the Turks believe by tradition, man’s folly goes perhaps as far as martyrdom, but not for those which in fact been seen.”
On history of Christianity – (646) “Therefore this religion attracts me, and I find it already sufficiently justified by so divine a morality. But I find more in in than that: I find, effectively, that for as long as human memory can remember, a people more ancient than any other has existed. Human beings are constantly being told that they are universally corrupt, but that a Redeemer will come. That it is not one person that says so, but countless persons and a whole people, prophesying explicitly for four thousand years. Their Books dispersed for four thousand years. Finally, they themselves, without idols or king.
A whole people foretells him before his coming. A whole people worships him after his coming.
The more I examine that people, the more truth I find in them: both in what came before and what came after, and that synagogue which came before him, and the synagogue (the number of Jews) wretched and without prophets who came after him and who, being all hostile, are admirable witnesses to us of the truth of these prophecies in which their wretchedness and blindness are foretold.”
Throughout Pensées Pascal repeatedly states that Reason alone will not suffice in man’s search for God. This is why, in my opinion, Pascal spends so much time on the condition of mankind. “For the Christian faith is concerned almost wholly with establishing these two things: the corruption of nature and the Redemption of Jesus Christ.” Pascal offers Historical reasons for belief, his Wager as logic for belief, as well as the evidence of the state of humanity.
From (704) – “The God of Christians does not consist of a God who is simply the author of mathematical truths and the order of the elements: that is the job of the pagans and the Epicureans. He does not consist simply of a God who exerts his providence over the lives and property of people in order to grant a happy span of years to those who worship him: that is the allocation of the Jews. But the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, the God of Jacob, the God of the Christians is a God of love and consolation; he is a God who makes them inwardly aware of their wretchedness and his infinite mercy, who unites with them in the depths of their soul, who makes them incapable of any other end by himself.”
I agree with your thought, “Weighing potential profits against potential losses is a good way to make some decisions, but not a great way to weigh truth claims.” I think Pascal would agree here too. There are many truth claims about Christianity than can and should be investigated. Pascal would argue, in addition, that perhaps reasons alone aren’t enough, that perhaps whilst there are good reasons, they wont always be enough to make everyone believe. This doesn’t mean that rational defence isn’t required, but that it’s only one part of a Christian apologetic that would seeks to engaged the whole of a person, not just his/her intellect.
re: 4.
I wrote that quickly last night. Looking at it now, I would have perhaps used my ‘living bible’ principle as every age not only manipulates the bible but manipulates the portions that serve their current needs.
I mentioned elsewhere how the same chapter/book of the bible that denounces homosexuality also contains the absurd rules on planting crops and wearing different types of fabric, how to grow your hair and the manner to prepare your sacrifices. Yet we are led to believe that the homosexuality part is relevant and absolute to this day while the others are regularly disregarded and described as ‘rules for the people in that time and place’ or something similar.
I also mentioned elsewhere how religious people don’t even know their own bible. They will denounce a work of literature for being ‘smut’ regardless of the context because it mentions a sexual scenario without even knowing about the whore who reveled in recalling her youthful days with men hung like donkeys who’s emissions were like that of horses.
The examples aren’t hard to find. People in every age (especially the people in charge of the churches) manipulate the bible to suit their present needs. But do so while wanting you to believe that every word matters, and nothing in the book should be edited, reviewed, discard or ignored.
And again, I would agree with this to a point. Do Christians live inconsistently with their stated beliefs? We sure do. Does every Christian know their Bible as well as they ought? Probably not.
Agreeing to these two points does of course in no way pronounce Christianity as false, only that some of us (I’ll include myself in this) are flakey from time to time (but we’re working on it).
Your points on Biblical interpretation are valid. There are more than a handful of tricky parts that don’t necessarily read well straight off the bat. There are cultural practices from 3,000 years ago that are hard to fathom. There are favourite passages and there are less-visited passages. Still, the Bible taken as a whole, as a history of God’s interaction with people, presents a picture – tricky parts and all – that comes to a head with the person of Jesus in the New Testament.
I don’t want to dismiss your specific points – and there are many people who have attempted to provide good answers to them – but can we cut to the chase here? Christianity lives or dies with the resurrection of Jesus. If Jesus came back to life from death, then surely some of the other tricky parts are worth further scrutiny. If he didn’t come back to life, then there’s absolutely no point reading the rest of the book.
This is why the transmission and translation of the Bible is incredibly important, as it is – in part – the evidence of the person of Jesus Christ. You mentioned the Council of Nicea earlier, and noted that there are verse missing etc. that indicate that the Bible cannot be trusted. Happy to get into specifics here if you like.
re: “Agreeing to these two points does of course in no way pronounce Christianity as false”
And knowing the bible in detail and following it precisely to the letter in no way makes it true.
re: “There are more than a handful of tricky parts that don’t necessarily read well straight off the bat. ”
Yet, this is alleged to be the ultimate word of God or at least guided by the hand and will of God to represent the word of God. A God who is alleged to see all, know all, to have created all and manipulate all in an ongoing fashion. So he would have known there would be ‘tricky’ parts, yet he allowed them to be tricky to begin with? He would have known there would be interpretive issues, yet he allowed things to be open to ambiguous interpretation.
OK, but you can argue it was men that wrote these things down for man’s benefit. Fair enough, but the dialogue in Christianity is specific that Jesus was God. He was here. He spent a good 30 years growing up before starting a ministry or preaching at large. He had time – if he could ‘see’ what trouble the bible and it’s bad interpretations would cause, this begs the question….
http://thewildwebster.wordpress.com/2009/06/22/why-didnt-jesus-write-a-book/
Thanks for the link to your article – I’ll take a look and respond there.
re?: 6-7-9-10
Keep in mind, just like the OP, the premise for this list is based on a conditional scenario. It is not intended to encompass anyone with anything resembling a mystic belief and is in part (like the OP) a mocking jest.
yes some people say silly things, some believe in evolution, but the list is highlighting a particular type of believer.
re: 8 – definition of faith
Faith comes from a word meaning ‘trust’ but has traditionally and predominantly been used in a religious context – trust in religious principles or beliefs. I already stated that belief is defined as acceptance as fact without proof. Faith is reliance and adherence to a belief. Therefore faith is following and adhering to an idea assumed to be true without proof.
Yeah – there is a bit of tongue-in-cheek in all of this. And I really did enjoy your list!
I think faith and trust are closely linked. However, I think belief doesn’t need to be defined solely in terms of a position without evidence. It might be, but it doesn’t need to be.
Belief that Jesus Christ is who he says he was – God – is linked to evidence. If there is no historical evidence for the person of Christ then the position of belief in Christ as God is severely dented.
Actually, belief is pretty much acceptance without evidence. The alternative is called ‘knowledge’ or ‘thinking’.
Yet, despite the alleged importance of this ‘son of God’, there are no undeniable records anywhere in Roman record keeping (which tended to rather thorough) of his existence. The ‘evidence’ tends to revolve around documents kept and/or collected by the ‘church’. And I’m sure there was no selection bias in gathering and collating that stuff!
They don’t even have original copies of the scriptures. The most recent copy is from the dead sea scrolls, yet those elucidated that the Council of Nicea ignored close to 100 other texts to compile their chosen 13 for the new testament.
And regardless of proving ‘a man’ fitting the Christ myth, there are still considerable questions in regards to him doing anything extraordinary by way of ‘miracles’. But there is in fact considerable evidence of not only the existence of many ‘mystery’ religions spawning around that time on the outskirts of Roman cities, a propensity for those religions to ‘borrow’ from prior religions and a whole slew of prior myths that have uncanny resemblences to the Christ dialogue. Hmmmm
This is all without even looking at the ‘fact’ that there are over 5000+ different religions or religious ideologies currently in practice on the planet at this very moment. This is without even counting those that have gone extinct with cultures, been dismissed as absurd (an ironic redundancy in my opinion) or otherwise abandoned. And why these 5000+ all differ in a vast number of ways as to their story lines, they often share one trait – they all think they are the only one that got it 100% right, and that their way is the only way to true enlightenment, salvation, etc.
I’m not sure I agree with you on the definition of belief, but this may just be semantics. If in a court of law a lawyer asks the jury to decide for themselves if they ‘believe’ the witness to be telling the truth, this will be based on what the jurors have seen and heard. Likewise, when we say, “I believe you” to a friend who insists he is telling the truth, it doesn’t mean we believe in a vacuum, without evidence, but that we believe on the basis of evidence.
On your question of extra-Biblical historical records, I wrote a piece on this.
On the original copies of manuscripts – you’re quite right, but then we don’t have the original copies of many works of antiquity (Plato, Aristotle, Homer … ) What we do have a very early copies of the Biblical manuscripts, and many, many copies that are almost identical. I haven’t written on this yet (although I have spoken on it – so maybe I should) – but many have. A good read is ‘Why Trust The Bible?’ by Amy Orr-Ewing.
The Council of Nicea didn’t decide the canon of Scripture, but did recognise it. For brevity’s sake, I’ll link to a good post on that here.
On Jesus’ extraordinary miracles, the Resurrection would be number one I would imagine. Andy has written about the ‘bare facts’ on that matter here. http://www.cvm.org.uk/blog/demolition-squad/is-he-risen/
On the other religions ‘spawning around’ that time, how many are around today? I’m asking as the weight of Christianity also lies in part in its strength and endurance through history.
And I completely agree with your list, but I would add Atheism too. Not as a religion of course, but as a position positing enlightenment (through knowledge) and salvation (freedom from religious shackles etc.) too. They can’t all be right. Only one position can be.
re: definition of belief.
But that is how the world is most often used. It’s one of the things I generally point to – these ways of thinking permeate our culture and society to the point that people don’t even take them for granted. Well, I don’t take them for granted, and I now say “I assume” when referring to something not entirely certain and ‘I think’ when referring to something – well, something I think. Belief, I reserve for pure arbitrary speculation.
re: council of nicea ‘recognized’
Yes, of course. So says the council of nicea and the Catholic church. How convenient.
So, semantics then 🙂
I’m thinking of writing on history of the Bible – including Dead Sea Scrolls (which were just an OT find). Perhaps it would be better to carry on the conversation there? Will post the link when the first part has been written.
No you wouldn’t “like to get into it more”. He made well thought, evidence based arguments – and you mocked him!
Don’t respond to this arrogant sheep, Webster. You defeated him soundly before he opened his ignorant mouth.
You do realize that #s 1, 3, half of 4, 5, a LOT of 6, 8 and 9 could all appear on a list titled “Signs That You Might be an Intellectually Dishonest Fundamentalist”, right?
In fact, it was the intellectual dishonesty of the fundamentalism I was raised in that led to my eventual atheism. From my parents only reading “history” they wanted to be true (the widely-discredited David Barton), to denial of evidence for evolution without ever actually examining it.
The entire list here is constructed more as a passive-aggressive attack on atheism, or rather, what you presume atheism to be, rather than anything beneficial for either believers or non-believers. It would be better stated that many of these examples are simply signs of intellectual dishonesty, period, because Christians are just as guilty.
You open with Vanity and close with Judgementalism? Nice Christian idol you make.
Pretty much par for the course from where I stand [in judgment].
He heh. See what I did there?
I find it hilarious that “judging” and “prejudism” are actually natural human traits that are _impossible_ for anyone to be completely devoid of.
It’s a natural response to make crtical assertions about things/people/animals that are different than us.
The problem lies in over application, and that is up to the individual to limit.
Hey Martin. Thanks so much for posting. I suppose I don’t see where the vanity and judgementalism are. These are just buzz words you’ve used, but I’m happy to be challenged, so could you be more specific? Cheers.
The entire opening paragraph was about physical appearance and your dislike with what you see/the fact you are worried how you fall short of some “standard”. I know you won’t agree, but I see that as similar to the problem we have with fashion magazines and how the skew young girls’ views of the human body. The fact that your lead-in is based solely on fascination with contempt toward ugliness (that is strong language, I know) is a big faux pas.
I made an earlier post talking about “judgement” and “prejudism”. I’m not avoiding this point of contention, but I would be most willing to rescind that accusation if you can find/read that post.
Thank you for your direct request and chance to respond – I think you saw I was attacking your writing style, not just making a quick Ad Hominem and darting out.
And another ….
Are you taking a survey? Or did I win something??? Tell, tell!
Ha! Whoops! Wish there were prizes 🙂 That was me forwarding the comment to Andy (all the comments seem to come into my inbox) and instead of an email to Andy – “Hey Andy, here’s another reply to you …” – It came out as a comment. Interesting. Could make more use of this reply-to-comment feature …
Another accident that leads to the advancement of technology. Christians & Atheists working together for a brighter tomorrow!
🙂 If that were written on one of the many election pamphlets coming through my door right now, I’d give it a second look!
I posted a response that isn’t showing up – this is a follow up.
I realize you are trying to reach a group of mostly like-minded thinking people, but today’s media microscope (the internet) allows any published material to be criticized by anyone. If you are going to post as a person of Faith, then you have to make sure to recheck every word twice. Wolves (us Atheists) got wi-fi and whatnot. Make your arguments less susceptible and open to being torn down. Avoid analogies (not being mean, just honest), yours aren’t very good. Nobody will ever win Theist vs. Atheist. Ever. Neither side. So make sure you clearly define words and ideas as either factual or belief-based, but not both; that is the grey area Atheists love to tread like hungry sharks.
I hope you don’t read this as an Atheist trying to accomplish some underhanded-plot. This is heart-felt advice that will make you a better representative of God.
People have retorted to all these 9 statements, and I only want to reply to #9. When you look at all beliefs, both religious and atheist, and critique them, that is how I and I am sure many others become atheist. I wasn’t born atheist, but I found it within myself to step back, look at my religion objectively, I realised a lot of it didn’t make sense. So therefore I implore you to apply all your statements to your own belles, but especially #9, as I feel that is the biggest failing in a lot of Christians and people of other faiths as well
You were born atheist. You were *born into* a family that raised you a particular religion. You went back to atheism.
Welcome Back! We missed you! 😀
I can do better than that. I was born atheist in several of my previous lives!
Hey Rob. I suppose I feel the same about when I lost my atheism. It just doesn’t make any sense to me. The chances of a life-permitting universe, the existence of objective morality. I couldn’t ignore these facts anymore. I think a lot of ‘religion’ doesn’t make sense. And a lot of the core issues of Christianity may well appear not to make any sense. But I think that’s only a superficial problem, and I think that atheism is often a rejection of a certain upbringing rather than a rejection of a loving God. Likewise, I implore you to think carefully about Jesus’ offer of fullness of life in John 10:10. Nobody else has made you that offer. Big love, and thanks so much for posting.
Funny stuff.
I kinda sighed more than chuckled. It lacked puns – really bad puns.
At least when atheists cite a book to bolster our arguments we actually know who wrote it.
This has to be a POE. Please tell me this is a POE.
err, this opinion piece was intellectually dishonest.
Say that again, but this time have Rip Torn run in tossing confetti out of a bucket, shouting “Good night, everybody!”.
Are any of these based off anything real people have ever actually said?
At least one has.
Now.
No. This is the same silly argument put forward by Peter Hitchens. He argues that atheists pretend that God doesn’t exist so they can sin often and have sex and drugs. That would be like pretending that the police don’t exist, so that you can commit crimes. Pretending doesn’t make them go away.
What I would like to see from you is good arguments that God actually exists. Apparently you don’t have any so you are going this silly route instead.
Wrong.
If Churches disappeared tomorrow, every human being on earth (even those who live nowhere near Churches) would instantly start raping anyone who got in their meth-crazed-way while searching for babies to snack on.
There is a study that proved it.
Consider this also in light of number 6, as it is an ad hominem argument. The author is a hypocrite.
Calling him a hippopotomus and a homo gets us nowhere. Please make rational arguments.
Hey mate. Thanks for posting. I agree that pretending the police don’t exist would be silly. Lots of people, however, refuse to accept the authority of the police, don’t they? For the record, I’m not arguing that atheists pretend there’s no God in a conscious sense, although I would argue that the truth of God is repressed and excluded by people. I know you’ll love me saying that! Finally, the article isn’t ‘9 things that all atheists do’, so you don’t have to take it all to heart. Once again, thanks for joining in.
The counterarguments are making far stronger cases than the OP.
So the meta-question is:
Will Andy & CVM be intellectually honest enough to keep the counterarguments posted?
As far as I know, there is no filtering of comments on this blog.
But I’m not sure I agree with your conclusion that the counter-arguments are making far stronger cases. There are some good points being made on both sides, I’ll grant that!
Thank you for the entertainment. You Christians are too funny.
Thanks Mario. I’ll put that on the CV! You might want to re-read number 2? 🙂
This list must be created by a person who has never actually talked to an atheist before. It is the worst ad hominem, strawman argument full of the most psychological projection I have ever seen, and I have seen a whole lot.
1. The very first one is obvious since one usually becomes an atheist because they read into religion and read many religious texts about it to even become an atheist or even consider coming to this conclusion.
2-3.Often atheists will line out debates very well without attacking, it is usually Christians that feel threatened and automatically use name calling. I have been threatened to be raped and killed by Christians because they don’t agree with me. How is that for anger? However, I don’t judge all Christians for this, many don’t demonize other people like you do because they don’t believe in the world the way you do. You are the reason Christianity looks bad.
4. So you believe everything in the bible and claim you are being “logical” and “rational”? You should take your own advice.
5. Atheists usually did ask the original questions you yourself deem as somehow rhetorical. It is how they started to question religion. See number 1.
6. There is a reason most polls state that atheists are more well read even on religion. Not to say there aren’t some dumb atheists out there or Christians who have a higher education, well read and intellectual, usually they don’t get into debates online with atheists because they are progressive and don’t have any problems with atheists. On many atheist or humanism blogs I am on we have Christians on them and we all get along. You should stop trying so hard to polarize. You are propagating the Us vs. Them. Why do you feel so threatened by us?
7. Lol are you seriously going to go with this? The most common thing done is spouting off bible verses that are simplistic one dimensional and used out of context as if it somehow makes you win an argument. Again, maybe you should practice what you preach.
8. I rarely see them state “everybody” I would say more often than not religious people would exclaim “everybody knows jesus existed” and then spout off something that isn’t even true or backed up what so ever by science.
9. The majority of the time when I see debates, it is often when a christian attacks gay rights, atheism, or somehow decides that everyone should be christian and they become bullies and pushy. This is usually the heart of nasty debates I see between the 2 sides. Once again, maybe if you stop thinking it is “Us vs Them” and realize we are all human and stop being so polarizing maybe you will realize that not everyone has to be christian and just because they aren’t you can still respect them as a human who also deserves the same rights you do.
When I was a Christian, I was often told to “guard my mind.” I was told I should be careful what I read, what I see, even what I think, because viewing or reading or thinking on sin and heresy could drag me down and lead me astray.
If Christians are so confident their beliefs can stand up to criticism, why do they insist that ONLY Christians should be allowed to pray in meetings, or put up displays?
In my experience, atheists go onto Christian websites just as much or more than Christians do to atheists.
I would say, “No it isn’t.” You cannot dismantle a logical argument simply by laughing at it.
I could go on, if you like. Every point here is a straw man. Use your mind for a change and recognize that not everybody thinks like you do.
On the matter of Zeus and co. vs. the Christian God – the mistake made with the “We go one step further argument” is to equate Zeus to the Christian God. But a rudimentary investigation shows these two characters to be quite different from one another.
Interestingly, Christians in this way were seen as Atheists in Roman occupied countries for failing to worship the Emperor and other gods. It was because Christians recognised this difference that they were labelled ‘atheists’ and in doing so made themselves punishable under Roman law.
“But a rudimentary investigation shows these two characters to be quite different from one another.”
Yes. Yes they are different. But they share at least one common feature. They are both fictional characters.
Excellent points made Andy. Of course as a Christian, who’s spent a fair bit of time online with atheists (FriendlyAtheist.com) I can say that many atheists are capable of far more sophisticated thought and generally don’t commit the logic failures you’ve mentioned, or can correct themselves.
And, of course, I’ve seen many Christians commit every logic failure you’ve mentioned and then some.
So really, we should ALL be on the lookout for intellectual disingenuity and seek to be as intellectual honest as possible.
As an atheist, I would like to respond to Andy point by point. I apologize in advance for length:
1. You only read/watch what you already agree with.
This one is easy to refute by the very fact I am reading this blog. In fact, most atheists I know read across a variety of genres and are genuinely interested in alternate views. If anything, I see Christians as the group who most exemplify this notion. Many only read books by Christian authors (Purpose-Driven Life is a great example), they make it a point to pack movie theaters to watch the error-riddled movie God is Not Dead. They watch TV shows like 700 Club, et. al. See a pattern here. You see atheists do not have a unified agenda because atheism is not a philosophy per se. It is simply a single position on a single question: Is there a good reason to accept the claim ‘gods exist” based on available evidence.
2. “People who disagree with me are stupid!”
Andy uses point #1 (easily refuted) to inform point #2. Now, I will say this. There are humans who do exist that most of us would label JERKS. These jerks come in all shapes and sizes and that applies to theists and atheists. There are arrogant people who truly do think other people are stupid. I will not defend an atheist who takes this position (I personally don’t know any such atheists myself). I do know many Christians however, who denigrate people like me because we are “lost” or “not spiritually wise” — basically saying we are stupid for not finding the claims of the Bible myth compelling. So again…Kettle to pot…you are black.
And full disclosure: A great many of my friends and co-workers are Christian. Without exception I find most of them to be very intelligent. I do not know why some of us find god claims compelling and some don’t but I wager it’s more about HOW our brains are wired rather than the level of our intelligence.
3. You get angry with those who disagree. You swear at or shout down people in conversation, or walk away from a discussion.
See response to bullet point #2. Again, I don’t know where he is finding these type of atheists. I wonder if he visits lots of chatrooms like Paltalk. It is true there are angry profane people of all varieties there..-atheists and theists. I have visited such rooms and I tend to find that rooms specifically devoted to Christianity contain some of the most hateful people I have ever met. But again, I realize that many people who go to chatrooms go simply to cause a scene (atheists and theists alike).
I do know that in terms of happiness, nations with the highest population of atheists per capita rate much higher on “happiness scales” so make of that what you will.
Andy says: “If you’re getting angry when talking to Christians, maybe you’re not quite as clued up as you thought you were. That’s OK – just follow the path where it leads.” I truly do not know what that means.
4. You use words like ‘rational’ and ‘logical’ and ‘free-thinking’ to describe yourself.
Again, Andy, I don’t know what atheists you means. It seems to me that you are committing a strawman fallacy. You have created this atheist who rarely exists in reality and set him up as Every Atheist. Perhaps you are projecting Kevin Sorbo’s “Angry Atheist Prof” from the apologetic laden film God is Not Dead. Now, do I personally refer to myself as “rational. free thinking, logical?” No. I do try to always offer rational, logical reasons for any claims I make (and try to always back them with evidence). But, most atheist don’t really use these adjectives to describe themselves in a holistic sense. If you ask most atheist to describe themselves in general, I believe you would hear words like “mother,” father, student, citizen, teacher, etc.” In short, normal answers. I am interesting in accepting as many true things as possible and rejecting as many false or unfounded assertions as possible. That is the best way to succeed as a human being on this planet in my experience.
5. You deliver statements as though they are questions. But you’re not really looking for the answers. A question like ‘How could God allow so much suffering?’ is a good question, but it doesn’t automatically follow that he wouldn’t. The answers to these questions are hard, of course, but they’re out there, if only you’re prepared to look.
Have you considered that maybe you’re using the question to shield yourself from the answer? Quite the opposite. I WANT to know the true nature of the universe whatever that may be. Let me ask you. Can you entertain the notion that no gods exist? If not, why?
I agree the answer to these questions are out there. The most compelling answer I find is that none of the gods suggested by humans over the centuries has ever been shown to exist. They just haven’t.
The Problem of Evil question you raise I find to be a non-starter because, after I consider the available evidence, I remain unconvinced by any claims anyone has ever made about the existence or the power of a divine force operating in the universe. I am (and most atheists are) open to new evidence. I am interested in discovering as much as I can about this universe. If we suddenly discovered a divine force/god, I would be excited and want to know more. What an amazing discovery. However, as far as I can tell, there are no gods causing suffering. Bad things just happen. We can use reason and cooperation to mitigate these bad things as much as possible but they are a part of life.
As far as questions to theists go…we atheists are not pounding the pavement looking for theists to question but if the subject of the god claim comes up, why is it not reasonably to ask questions. The topic of belief is fascinating. I seek to understand why some people accept claims for which there is no evidence (i.e. taking things on faith).
6. You use ad-hominem attacks.
I have to call Andy out on this one. He seems to be saying “I have witnessed an atheist use an ad hom attack, therefore I am going to paint ALL atheists with a broad stroke.” Why do you feel compelled to pick on only atheists only? Again, visit a chat room like Paltalk and you will find atheists and theists in equal measure making ad hom attacks. Why? Because some people, regardless of their belief or lack, prefer to argue that way. Like I said above, there are jerks in this world..atheists and theists. But to pretend that all atheists are slavering, name calling muckrakers and that all believers are innocent, poor victims of ad hom attacks is the very height of intellectual dishonesty (irony alert).
7. You quote famous atheists, without being able to back up their arguments. Dawkins, Hitchens, Bertrand Russell. In place of delivering your own ideas and thoughts, you simply quote something that one of your heroes has said. The problem is that you find it much more difficult to build on those sound bites when pushed. An example of this would be ‘You’re an atheist when it comes to Zeus. Atheists just go one God further’. How would you respond when informed that this is a joke, not an argument? What’s your follow-up argument? See what I mean? A quote from an atheist is not in itself an argument for atheism. We all need to be careful that emotive, persuasive language doesn’t replace actual argumentation.
Isn’t the entire Christian message based on Appeals to Authority (i.e. the Bible)? And you accuse atheists in engaging in this. Yes, Andy, sure some atheists do that..but I would argue ALL Christians (or most) base their entire worldview on Appeals to Authority (X is true because Paul said so. Y is true because Jesus said so). How is that different? Also, the Zeus argument you mentioned has not been shown to be a joke. My follow up may be something like: If you do not find the claims that Zeus or Thor exists, why do you find the claim that Yahweh/Jesus exists to be true? Are you using different standards? I totally agree with you that a quote from an atheist is not in itself an argument for atheism. And the same applies to quotes from theists. Just because Paul or Bill Graham or Rick Warren says its true doesn’t make it so.
8. You use generic catch-all phrases which show your poor hand. ‘Everybody knows Jesus never existed’, or ‘It’s a scientific fact that science has disproven God’ work here. Statements like this are usually a dead giveaway that you haven’t really lo
Again, a strawman argument. Sure, some atheists must say such things but is that the default usage for most atheists? The Jesus question is interesting. Personally, I would not be surprised if the Jesus stories were based on a real person or persons and I would not be surprised if it turns out Jesus is simply a myth. Both sides have compelling arguments. Again, most atheists I interact with are not mythicists and generally agree that some sage named Yeshua did in fact exist upon which the gospels are based. I also do not know who these atheists are who claim “‘It’s a scientific fact that science has disproven God’ work here.” Science doesn’t work that way and atheists know this. Science is a process used for determining how evidence fits into reality. Science makes no claims about Gods because no evidence is available to examine.
9. You never really critique your own beliefs. Attacking, ignoring or sneering at other viewpoints is often a way of deflecting attention away from yourself.
If you took any time to actually talk with atheists you would learn that most of us were religious at one time. It is the very fact that we DID critique our assumptions and beliefs that led us to atheism. I won’t comment further on your straw man — the attacking, ignoring or sneering atheist monster.
ANDY says: Are your reasons for believing what you believe genuinely rational and considered, or are they simply a verbal manifestation of how you feel? I can’t speak for every atheists but mine are the result of a long process of rational discourse and study. I could ask you and every Christian the same question. I actually served as a minister for about 5 years and looking back, I can honestly say most people whom I “led to the Lord” based their decision on their immediate emotional state. I am not saying this applies to all Christians (Jesuits for example are quite thoughtful).
ANDY says: And are your reasons for rejecting other worldviews equally rational, or does the idea of a God who has more power than you simply create a negative emotional reaction, which you then reject?
Why would a more powerful being’s existence bother anyone? Again, I don’t know to whom you are addressing because I know of no atheists with this position. I could be wrong I realize. We already have many examples of more powerful entities in this universe and we can co-exist with them without “negative emotional reactions.” Examples include: public officials, professional athletes, executives, even religious figures even in the animal kingdom many organisms are “more powerful” than us — bears, lions, sharks, etc. Your question is a non-starter since we already actually co-exist with numerous “more powerful” entities.
ANDY says: Does it cut up your desire for autonomy, or conflict with your trust that you are in control?
Again, I’m not sure many atheists feel this way. I know I don’t. As a human living on this planet, I do agree I have some degree of autonomy and yes I find it useful. But don’t you also exercise autonomy by deciding to believe? Are you saying Christians are automatons? Am I in control? Are you in control (also isn’t self-control a fruit of the spirit..:) ? Seriously though whether a god exists or not — the simple fact is that we humans do have some control but I recognize (as I guess you do) that there are many things that are out of my control. If anything, I am puzzled by Christians who sincerely believe they can control outcomes via prayer, etc. Can’t they also understand that many things are out of their control? As someone who seeks to accept reality as it is, I personally have no issue accepting that for the most part I do not control many things — natural phenomena, the economy, the whims of despots, the violence of fellow humans. That is simply the state of this universe.
ANDY says: My belief is that, if you do any of these 9 things, you may be confusing your intellect with your emotions.
Andy, I could not agree more! Let’s make sure we avoid fallacies across the board — atheists and theists alike. However, my main opposition to your column is this: You are attributing these 9 things to only atheists and you seem to be insinuating that these are all common among most all atheists. I do not see any good reason to buy that claim. And of course, I recognize I could be biased as could you. But, I am only trying to be sincere.
ANDY says: Crucially, the reasons most people give for rejecting Jesus are almost never as rational and well-thought-out as they think, but instead a sort of advertising slogan for their desires.
Can you demonstrate the accuracy of that claim with evidence? And personally I am not rejecting Jesus per se. Given that the Gospels were written decades after Jesus supposedly died and were written by anonymous non-eyewitnesses (the titles were added later), I can’t honestly say I even know much about who this Jewish teacher may have been or what he really taught. So, I have no basis for rejecting any claims given the insufficiency of evidence. If we stipulate for the sake of argument that some of Mark (the oldest gospel) is based in some facts (for example, the idea of a wandering Jewish sage who preached that the apocalypse was near and for political reform) then I have no real problem with Yeshua. He was probably a sincere guy. I think he was misguided but some of the teachings attributed to him are beneficial just as some Buddhist teachings are. Wisdom is wisdom and if it works it works. So, I don’t reject Jesus but I do not find the claims of the Bible (redacted and re-edited many times over centuries) to be compelling in terms of accuracy.
ANDY says: How we feel is not always a good gauge of truth. The truth doesn’t always underwrite our feelings, but often wounds them. How will you deal with that? What do you want? Your truth? Or The Truth?
I agree. And as I stated, I find it is more the Christian, rather than the atheist who responds to claims with emotion. I think we agree that facts in the universe exist regardless of our feelings. I agree that we should examine the evidence for ALL claims and see where it leads us. I know we won’t agree on the results. If you had simply titled your article “Nine Signs You May Be an Intellectually Dishonest PERSON” I would have applauded your efforts because I do see many people from many positions make some of the mistakes you mention. But their belief or lack of belief in gods is irrelevant. Fallacies are fallacies. Let’s ALL avoid them. Can I get an AMEN, brother?
Hi, atheist here. First time I read this, I thought you were describing Christians. The only thing I have in common with other atheists is that we don’t believe in a god. All the other things you say about me seems to be a projection of your own position.
Hi there! Thanks for posting. I agree that the traits can apply to anyone and everyone. I think it’s probably a little disingenuous to say that you share no other traits with other atheists. But the blog isn’t ‘9 things that all atheists do’. If you do none of them – and only you know this – then you’re much more rounded than lots of people, so well done 🙂
Apparently it upsets you to have your beliefs restated to you in clarifying language. I should think it would be helpful to you in remedying number 9, critiquing your own beliefs.
The Bible states that various religious figures went up into the sky. Jesus, for example, and his mother. Well now civilized man has gone up into the sky, and indeed into space. We can see the solar system, the galaxy; even other galaxies up there. The belief that Heaven is a place, and you get there by going up into the sky is not compatible with current scientific knowledge, and it is an accurate statement of Christian belief.
Jesus, as describe in the Gospels, was Jewish. atheists are not making this up. Jesus, as described in the Gospels (other than early versions of Mark), purportedly arose from his grave and walked the earth. That is what zombies allegedly do. Atheists are not making this up, it is a true reflection of Christian belief.
If you do no wish to be ridiculed, be less ridiculous.
I read Christian blogs from time to time, but doing that is not really necessary for me to be exposed to views and opinions that differ from my own, because I live inside a gigantic Christian “blog” called the United States. I am bombarded by Christian Christians Christianly saying Christian things and Christianly doing Christian things in a Christian way for Christianity’s sake every headache-filled day!
I go to an atheist blog to get out of the cacophony of the Christian echo chamber for a soothing break.
Hi Richard, thanks for sharing. I get what you’re saying. We’re British, and over here the culture is very different. The dominant voice is the secular naturalist voice, and so we’re primarily kicking against that. It’s interesting that what counts as punching up here is actually punching down on the other side of the pond. Once again, thanks for joining in.
Pot, meet kettle (x 9)
I do number 4, but it’s because I actually follow up on my arguments rather than cloaking myself in a magic shield.
I recognise this as a list of traps that people on all sides of any argument can fall into; yet they’re listed here as if they only apply to atheists and not to Christians. Own goal. The Christians follow their book, and the result is this advert for prejudice, with it’s implied conclusion that Christians are above such pitfalls of human psychology.
On the contrary, I’d agree that all people can fall into this trap. I’m encouraged that you see that you might have done. So have I! The title, to be honest, was simply a marketing ploy for the site. And it worked, cos you’re here and you’re engaging. Brilliant!
But the content matches the title Andy. If you’re saying that the whole article is rubbish and just a ploy to get atheists engaging in debate, then that’s great news and only slightly irritating. It’s unfortunate that that other long Christian article (the Bible) identifies atheists as an out-group – is that just a marketing ploy?
http://youtu.be/fbGkxcY7YFU
The irrational, poorly educated comments you’ve received make your case for you!
Atheists have a tendency to focus on some obscure passages in the Bible but forget about what is important and that is about Jesus who died on the cross, rose again on the third day, and offered us the chance to be saved through his atonement. But this grates against the intellect of skeptics so they simply dismiss it. Intellect has become their idol which violates the command not to worship any idols which in fact the intellect has become for them. It matters not that many of the events were witnessed by various people since they have been conned by smooth talking scholars who approach the bible with skeptical eyes and their atheist/skeptic followers drink the “kool-aid” of these confidence artists since it supports their own skepticism and tickles their ears.
If so many people witnessed the resurrection, then why is there no documentation of the event until 40 years after it happened? If a person received a public execution and then came back to life, I would expect dozens or even hundreds of accounts from the time of the event. Not 4 accounts with differing details written 4 decades after the fact by people who weren’t even there.
That’s why we don’t believe it.
If you Google “It’s a scientific fact that science has disproven God” the only hits you get are Christian sites.
Thanks Robert. I’ve actually heard it quite a lot from atheist friends, but your challenge is a good one. It was probably a bad example – but the point still stands, I think. What did you make of the other points? Thanks so much for posting.
It’s hilarious to see all the atheists commenting on this article, it’s as if they all just stepped out of it.
You might be an intellectually dishonest Christian if you follow a 2000 year old book that is dogmatically unquestionable and is true because it says it’s true…
This game is fun!
I agree with the author. People need to be open minded. They need to look at and respect the viewpoints of others. I encourage atheists to look at Christian viewpoints and try to understand their point of view. And not just the ridiculous straw men like Westboro Baptist or Ken Ham, but the view points of moderate Christians. I get pissed off when self-righteous atheists act like the typical Christian doesn’t have a brain in his or her head. We need to treat each other and differing viewpoints with respect. I’ve done those things. I read my sister’s Catholic articles when she posts them. I occasionally listen to Christian radio. But you know, I’m still an atheist, and if anything I’m more confident and comfortable in my convictions than ever.
“They need to look at and respect the viewpoints of others.”
Nonsense. Just because a person holds a viewpoint doesn’t mean that the person or point of view is deserving of respect. Some people think that the world is being run by a race of shape-shifting alien lizard people.
David Icke would fall under the ridiculous straw men category I mentioned. I’m talking about showing respect for people with different beliefs, and occasionally looking at what they have to say. You don’t have to accept everything they have to say, but instead of focusing on the negative, try to find some positive. So for example, a lot of Christian articles focus on working on developing good family relationships and doing good for the community.
Kettle to Pot…Kettle to Pot…You’re black!
So funny to read this…all of this also applies to many Christians who are trying to impose their religious will upon everyone else.
Dogmatism is bad regardless of ideas. free-thinkers are few these days.
My take on this list:
#1 “You only read/watch what you already agree with.”
Totally agree. In fact, I WAS a Christian, until my father asked me a life-changin question: “How do you know your religion is the correct one?” turn me into a “spiritualist”. Even after that, I still read the bible and Christian books. Hey, it is one of the Bible Class from the church that “convert” me to atheism!
#2 “People who disagree with me are stupid!”
You forgot to put the word ALWAYS before the last word. Sometimes they are really stupid. Sometimes we are correct because we are smarter than the other side. Sometimes …
#3. You get angry with those who disagree.
Again, you forgot the word ALWAYS, this time after the first word. Hey, is it bad to be angry to injustice, barbarism, and stupidity? Is it wrong to be angry to assholes who support racism, nazism, slavery, etc?
#4. You use words like ‘rational’ and ‘logical’ and ‘free-thinking’ to describe yourself.
I agree to certain degree. Some atheists overuse those words, just like many theists overuse words like “pious” and “faithful” and “religious” and “spiritual” to describe themselves.
#5. You deliver statements as though they are questions.
What? You can’t answer some legitimate questions and start whining?
#6 You use ad-hominem attacks.
Totally agree. Ad-hominem attack is overuse by many people. Nevertheless, in your explanation, looks like you forgot that a theist vs atheist debate is often ABOUT MORAL!! Ad-hominem is USUALLY fallacious because it USUALLY changes the topic of the debate. It is a valid argument when the whole discussion is about MORALITY, especially since hypocrisy is immoral!!
#7. You quote famous atheists, without being able to back up their arguments.
Totally agree. A quote is to SUPPORT your argument, not to be thrown randomly during debate.
#8. You use generic catch-all phrases which show your poor hand
Once again, not all generic catch-all-phrases is wrong. One example: EVOLUTION IS A SCIENTIFIC TRUTH is really the truth, still rejected by many theists. Just ask any biologist.
#9. You never really critique your own beliefs.
AMEN!! But … isn’t this redundant? (See #1)
Talk about raw projection! I have never seen a single atheist in the universe who uses quotes from “famous atheists” to make an argument. I have, however, definitely encountered many dozens of Christians who rampantly quote the Bible in place of all rational discussion.
How about this? You might be an intellectually dishonest Christian when you make bald-faced assertions about atheists without even providing a single verifiable example of the accusations in question.
Since we believe the Bible is the inspired, inerrant, authoritative Word of God, you can understand why we use it. And of course atheists don’t use quotes because in their mind it would make them look like they aren’t using their own intellect (which is their argument afterall), but they ad lib their beloved atheist authors all the time, I know because I’ve had discussions with many of them. Now, please share our “bald-faced assertions about atheists”.
Sounds more like the typical theists I come across, if anything.
In fact, go through the list again, and swap a few words here and there, so it could be applied to theists, you’ll see what I mean.
Though like some of the others have mentioned, this could be applied to anyone arguing for any cause.
“You use words like ‘rational’ and ‘logical’ and ‘free-thinking’ to describe yourself. These words are like verbal placebos. They create a pleasant feeling of security in us without actually proving us to be any of those things.”
Replace the words with ‘blessed’ ‘saved’ and ‘forgiven’
9 Signs That You Might Be An Intellectually Dishonest theist,
Now read it again, even better change it to Christian/Jew/hindu/muslim and then read it again… We might sometimes say someone is stupid because we cannot counter their argument, But mostly we say it is Stupid because it really is, This article really is stupid.
Looks like you fit right into this list. Hmmm, quite telling…
7, so what if it is a joke? it has a point to it, doesnt it?
So accurate. I encounter this every time I converse with atheists. Denying Christ is a volitional matter.
First, I have to say I agree with almost everything he said here. Second, I think most everything he said has nothing to do with being Christian, Hindu, Atheist or something else. It has to do with being human. People don’t like being presented with evidence or even talk that is contrary to their own cherished beliefs. And I have seen atheists, christians and everything between violate every one of the rules the author mentions. The author seems to think that its only atheists who are intellectually dishonest, when in fact its just human beings in general.
Yet, being an atheist or agnostic or religious liberal, you are in a much better position to be open minded, even towards religion than, a fundamentalist or evangelical christian. I have no beliefs that require I believe or disbelieve in something. Noone is going to Punish Me for rejecting humanism for example. In many religions, but especially in the more fundamentalist versions of Islam and Christianity, even questioning the divinity of Jesus or the Morality of the Prophet is putting your immortal soul at risk at eternal hellfire, a never ending horrific existence of absolute torture. There’s just nothing like that in atheism or agnosticism, and little in the more liberal forms of religion. If I started telling everyone I believed in God tomorrow, I might raise a few eyebrows among my atheist friends, or spawn a few questions or arguments, but thats it. I am pretty free to pursue ideas from Buddhism, Humanism and yes even Judeo-Christian religions. Yet if you are already steeped in a religion that says changing your beliefs will cause you eternal torture, how much more pressure do you now have to NOT change or re-examine your beliefs?
I think what the author and many fundies are doing are trying to mimic the pattern of open mindedness, freedom of though, pursuit of evidence and reason, that liberal Christians and Jews, atheists, agnostics and humanists have been already pursing for some time. They are trying to portray themselves as the open minded and rational ones and portray the skeptics as the closed-minded, emotional ones. In other words, they are fighting fire with fire. I think ultimately this is a good thing, because it means they are valuing reason and evidence. However, its somewhat deceptive, because with the same breath, these folks are among the first to tell people in their churches, not to read certain books, not to question certain beliefs, not to allow certain theories to be taught in schools and even require statements of doctrinal belief at their own private religious universities, often with the thread of Hellfire. This is hypocritical. How can one criticize atheists for not reading christian books and blogs, when one tells ones own members that reading atheist and liberal religious literature can condemn them forever?
I also have to point out that many atheist and agnostics HAVE examined the opposite side’s point of view. Maybe not an angry atheist like Sam Harris who was raised that way, but the most of the rest of us were raised in some sort of church, heard the arguments from their friends, pastors and preachers in high school and college, and read all the right books such as Mere Christianity. And we either never were or or later became unconvinced of the truth of that religion. At some point, you decide “been there, done that” instead of listening to the same tired arguments. I’m sure there are Christians who have done the same thing in regards to atheism. If a new argument or evidence crops up, then thats a different story.
We should all look at the other side’s point of view. We should all be charitable and not assume that because someone disagrees with me, doesn’t mean that they are overly emotional, evil, stupid or intellectually dishonest. We should respect our common humanity more than disagree with our varying beliefs. We should have perfect freedom to pursue any religious or secular train of thought without fear of dismissal, harassment, name-calling or hellfire.
I have atheists at my church and I have pagans and Christians. I like listening to all of them, their stories, where they’ve been, what they believe and why. I’m not worried about converting them or fearing for their eternal souls. If they have souls, God will take care of them. If not, we’re just all on this shared, short cosmic journey together.
A catch-all list that is designed not to fail… it is in fact committing most of the “sins” it purports to enlighten us about. Just like a well-tuned and burnished religion!
I came here 3 months too late. Hilarious how some of these Atheists,d is not a personal God. He does not reach out to us especially Jack, fall in to the same trap of being personally offensive in order to make their point. True signs of the weakness you see in your own position. And science has absolutely without a doubt proven the existence of God. Not that hard. Modern Atheists don’t even argue the point, or I should say, atheists who have followed the evidence don’t. What they say is that God is not a personal God. He does not reach out to us or infuse Himself in to our lives for our benefit. Nor does he create extra-dimensional existences for us to reside in after death. A much harder argument on some levels, and it reveals atheists who don’t believe in the existence of God, as echoes of other peoples thoughts, not their own. Oh well.
Sounds like somebody’s feelings got hurt and then they wrote an “article” in bulletin format. So far all I see as evidence of “god” are all the responsibilities that people attribute to either “god” or a “devil” or “demons”. Hurts a lot less when your family member/friend dies suddenly and you tell yourself it was “god’s” choice or the “devil’s” nefarious deeds.
I should also mention the number of nutters that think everything in this world is a conspiracy against their religion on some deep global level. They’d rather believe doctored photos of non-existent archaeological digs. Or more memorably I present the “Shroud of Turin” which is today generally accepted as “inauthentic” to put it kindly.
Then I point out that everything known of the religion was written and rewritten by multiple hands throughout history, human hands open to corruption at that. The bible itself is an abridged version of at least six tomes that we can confirm and there were at least a few notable ones left out.
Religion is a stubborn kind of nativity really, for most people it’s a way to emotionally deflect anything outside their “comfort zone”. Enjoy your blanket statements, a classic sign of somebody with no ground to stand on, most likely a “faux-intellectual”.
This is a troll, right?
Does not describe any of the atheists in the image at the top.
These points are so spot on and the remarks below only prove it ha ha
Kind of a silly statement, don’t you think?
The article says “MIGHT be intellectually dishonest.”
Not “definitely are”.
Yes, the people below “might” be intellectually dishonest, but there’s nothing there to suggest they are.
Unless you’re claiming that the article says that anyone who has any 1 of the above traits is DEFINITELY intellectually dishonest. In which case, you’re simply wrong.
The whole reason this article is pointless is that it’s a list of traits that most atheists have at least 1 of, but doesn’t tell you how likely they are to be intellectually dishonest.
If you believe in any form of god, you might be intellectually dishonest.
It’s true, you might be. It doesn’t mean you definitely are, but you might be.
Further, if you claim that penguins exist, you might be intellectually dishonest.
That doesn’t mean you are intellectually dishonest, it just means that you might be. There are people who claim that penguins exist but are also intellectually dishonest.
It’s funny but there is this facebook page called Atheism On The Slide and this article describes the admins perfectly.
Oh the irony it BURNS !!!
Here are OVER A HUNDRED questions for Christians to ponder and reflect on (and for some reason DONT) :
Morality – General
If you invented your own god – what would it be like, what would the
moral code be ? (e.g. would it endorse slavery ? would women be
banned from teaching ?)
If that (moral code) is different from the god that you worship, why do you worship that god ?
Why are there so many starving people when your book claims that your god is omnipotent ?
Why would a compassionate god torture non-believers just because they chose to be rational and demand evidence ?
Why would god allow a murdering infanticidal rapist into heaven (as
long as he repents), but take an atheist who has devoted his life
to helping others (but does not believe) and send him to hell ?
Why do you worship such a god ?
Why does your god love slavery so much ?
Why does your god hate women so much – and treat them as objects to be raped then bought for pieces of silver ?
Why does your god hate children so much – and list a dozen different circumstances under which they can be killed ?
Why did you god give man free will – then drown the planet for exercising it ?
Why did god drown all the animals – what had they done wrong ?
Why did god kill so many people in so many crusades over so many centuries ?
Why did God destroy the world by floods, rather than just stop people ?
Why does a god allow “unfixable” problems ? (rape, murder, fires, poisonings, drownings, child abuse etc etc etc)
Can you name just ONE benefit that your religion brings that a secular society could not ?
Morality – Examples
Why are Christians over represented in prisons (compared to atheists) by a factor of 40 – 100 ? (depending on sect)
Why do Christians divorce at a significantly higher rate than
non-Christians – in particular, atheists ? [Evangelical Christians 34%,
Atheists 21%]
How can any book be the source of morality ?
Society changes and embraces different values. If the Bible was
acceptable 2,000 years ago, then by definition, it cant be
acceptable today. Why doesn’t God to issue an updated version ?
(which of course would be an admission that he was wrong 2,000
years ago).
Why, (assuming that homo sapiens has been around
for 100,000 years) did God sit around for 98,000 years, while our
species suffered and died of famine and from war, (most of its
children dying in childbirth) doing nothing ? (from Hitchens)
Why after 98,000 years of complete indifference did God say “That’s
enough of that. It’s time to intervene,” and the best way to do
this would be by condemning someone to a human sacrifice somewhere
in the less literate parts of the Middle East rather than China
where they are literate ? (from Hitchens).
Why are so many Christian clerics convicted of crimes such as child abuse, murder, robbery etc ?
Why does god kill so many babies ?
Why does god abort so many foetuses ?
Why did god create so many different types of illnesses ?
Why did god create so many sick people ?
Why did god create so many different types of mental disorders ?
Why did god create so many people with mental disorders ?
Why doesn’t your god heal amputees ?
Prayer and Worship
Why should a god demand to be worshipped ?
Why does a god allow a problem to happen, then demand prayers to fix it ?
Why are HALF the commandments committed to worshipping him ?
Why should any compassionate god need worshipping ?
Why no commandments about taking care of children, and equality for women ?
The evidence shows that prayer doesn’t work – so why pray ?
Why do you try to convert people – why don’t you just pray them to be Christian ?
If you “have faith”, why do you go to hospital when sick – rather than just pray ?
If god is omnipotent and omniscient, then prayer is telling god that he was wrong to create the problem, so why do it ?
If god is omnipotent and omniscient, then prayer is telling god that
your solution is better, Are you claiming to be better than a god ?
Prayer violates the teachings of the gospels – so why do it ?
Praying commits six deadly sins – so why do it ?
Praying violates two commandments – so why do it ?
The Bible say that prayer should be prvate – so why do you pray in public ?
The Bible say that prayer should be prvate – so why do you demand the right to pray in public ?
Why do you “pray” for atheists who have blasphemed – when your book says that they can NEVER be forgiven ?
How does god choose between contradictory prayers ? (e.g. from
opposing teams asking for theirs to win, when by definition at
least half the prayer effort is pointless)
Bible – Accuracy and Completeness
Why are there so many scientific errors in the bible ? Shouldn’t the
creator of the universe have some basic knowledge of astronomy,
anatomy, physiology, mathematics etc ?
Why is biblical knowledge limited to the geographical area where it was written ? (Why no mention of polar creatures, Australian Kangaroos, deep sea creatures or astronomical objects such as black holes ?)
Why is biblical knowledge limited to past events ? Why no specific
references to modern technology e.g. computers, cars, mobile phones
?
Why are there so many incorrect prophecies ?
Why is God such a poor communicator ? Shouldn’t there only be ONE
Christian sect instead of a proliferation based on different
interpretations ?
Why has the infallible god made 1,000 biblical contradictions ?
What does the bible say that cant be said about Superman or Harry Potter ?
(If the claim is that the bible proves god, then Comics prove superman,
and the Harry Potter books prove Harry Potter).
Bible – Lexical Analysis
The
word “Care” appears only 54 times (KJV) but Enemy, Slay and Hate
appear 109, 142, and 179 times (Respectively). Does that sound like
a caring compassionate god ?
The word “Worship” appears 188 times (KJV) but Afraid, Kill, and Sword appear 189, 208, and 404 times (Respectively). Does that sound like a caring compassionate god who cares more about others rather than himself ?
The words “Love” and “Fear” appear 420 and 442 times (respectively)
(KJV) but “Fear” appears 501 times. Does that sound like a caring
compassionate god who cares more about others rather than himself ?
The word “Pray” appears 508 times (KJV) but “Own” appears 561 times. Does that sound like a caring compassionate god who wants us to look
after one another ?
The word “God” appears 4094 times
(KJV) – more than all the other words together. Does that sound
like a caring compassionate god who cares more about others rather
than himself ?
Bible – Originality and Credibility
Why are all the bible symbols (fish, trinity, cross, dove, serpent)
just plagiarisms of other ancient religious symbols (e.g. Hindu) ?
Why are all the bible myths (birth place of jesus, fall of man, jesus
as alpha and omega, crucifixion, flood, exodus etc) just
plagiarisms of other ancient religions (e.g. Hindu) ?
Why are all the bible customs (baptism, circumcision … etc) just
plagiarisms of other ancient religions (e.g. Hindu, Assyrian etc) ?
Can you name a single myth, custom or symbol that is
unique to Christianity – NOT found in ancient religions that predate
Christianity ?
Do you believe in ALL the bible rules ?
[Slavery, not eating shellfish or pork, killing naughty children,
no tattoos, no round haircuts, no divorce]
Do you FOLLOW all those rules – even the ones you disagree with ?
If the bible is the word of god, why don’t you follow all the rules, regardless of whether you agree with them ?
If you reject even just ONE biblical rule – why ? Isn’t that the word
of god aren’t you saying that you know better than god ?
Are you against abortion ? The bible says that it is fine – so why are you against it ?
Do you accept the fact of evolution ? The bible accepts it – so why do you reject it ?
If you are female, why are you responding ? The bible says that your viewpoint is worthless.
Evidence
Why haven’t any of Jesus’ miracles left any evidence ?
Why isn’t there evidence for Jesus existence ?
Why does God want us to believe that HE created the universe, yet
leave so much evidence for a natural creation (cosmogenesis) ?
Why does God want us to believe that HE created life, yet leave so
much evidence for the natural creation of life (abiogenesis) ?
Why does God want us to believe that HE created the creatures, yet
leave so much evidence for a natural creation of species
(evolution) ?
Why do so many Christian establishments suffer the
same fate (e.g. destroyed by fire, destroyed by flood, shootings
in church, shootings in Christian schools) as non Christian ?
Why doesn’t a god provide clear evidence of his existence ?
Why isn’t there even a single (unrefuted) philosophical argument for a deity ?
How would the world look without your god ? If a godless universe
would look exactly the same, why do you believe that a god exists ?
So if there is compelling evidence for a “god-free” universe, isn’t it more rational not to believe in a god ?
Why is it, that the better educated a person is, the more likely they are to be an atheist ?
Why is it, that atheists score consistently better than theists on religious knowledge tests ?
Faith & Knowledge
Why does a god demand faith rather than evidence ?
Why do you try to convert people who have blasphemed, when your book tells you that they can NEVER be forgiven ?
If I say “1+1=3, I have faith” – does that make it true ?
So is faith a good basis for knowledge ?
If you “have faith”, why do you demand that religion be taught as “science” ?
If you “have faith”, why do you seek medical help when sick – why not just pray ?
So if there is no actual evidence for a god, no philosophical reason
to believe in a god, and faith does not provide knowledge – so why
do you believe ?
Other Religions / Gods
If you had been born in ancient Egypt, would you (still) be a Christian ? (hint, Christianity didn’t exist then)
If you had been born in a modern Islamic country, what religion would you be ?
If a Muslim had been born and raised as a Christian, what religion would he (she) be ?
If you had been born on an remote island, with no religion, would you “invent” a god ?
How do factors such as place and time of birth affect your religious belief ?
If people came to independent conclusions about the existence of a
particular god, would it be possible to draw a world map of
religion ? (hint, such maps exist – why ?)
Of the thousands of gods that have existed, why do you reject all the other gods ?
Why can’t I apply your responses to (7) to your god – what is the difference ?
Explicitly – What can you claim about your god that can’t be claimed for other gods ?
Why has God allowed so many other religions to proliferate ?
Why does every religion claim that THEIRS is the one true religion with the one true god ?
Your is just one god in ten thousand – so at best you have a 0.0001 chance of being right – so why pick one ?
There is only one Christian God but an infinite number of possible Gods who hate Christians – WHAT IF YOU ARE WRONG ?
Why has God allowed so many atheists ?
Why is God allowing atheism to grow faster than Christianity ?
Quite an amusing article – the average informed atheist knows the bible BETTER than does bible adherents… this is because we’ve actually read several versions of the book several times in the hope we’ll fine something worthwhile in it – in frustration and disgust at the stooge of of morals paid lip service there but the contrary revealed, we have systematically read our way through libraries of information.
So – this article is really just a psychological projection by the faithfooled.
I think the title graphic is intellectually dishonest – it contains the implication that Dawkins, Russell and Hitchens are intellectually dishonest with no argument to back that up.
To be honest, I see a LOT of these coming from christian fundamentalists. I like to read the creationist literature to see what kind of arguments the so-called “creation scientists” come up with and I try to engage them as often as possible but they won’t want to talk to an actual scientist. That’s the problem. Just look at the debate of Ken Ham and Bill Nye???
Highly skeptical as to the motives of such an article. Probably written by a butthurt theist.
A infidel responds.
1. I listen to over 5 hours a week of apologetics podcasts. I’ve never met a christian who listened to over 5 hours of atheistic podcasts/audiobook a week.
2. Believers are no more stupid than I was for believing in Jesus for 25 years.
3. I get angry only about being misrepresented by dishonest christians following a script and not listening to what I am actually saying. So I’m angry quite often.
4. “Rationality” is a real concept. Some people who have spent years filtering logical fallacies and cognitive biases out of their arguments call themselves rational. They have earned this right, and the notion that calling themselves rational is indicative of irrationality is itself an irrational notion.
5. If you are new to the game of rationality, you ought to be cautious about being overconfident about the folly of the opposing position. But after you’ve spent years hearing the same apologitic fallacies uttered over and over, well… Be prepared to be pleasantly surprised by the rare solid argument from those who have offered little but fallacies, but don’t think years of earned confidence is anything to be ashamed of.
6. Correct. And don’t think someone calling your position silly is an ad hominem. It may be that your position is indisputably silly.
7. Correct. And don’t quote bible verses such as Hebrews 11:1 as an answer to what faith is unless you are prepared to explain what the verse actually means. If you can’t reconcile god’s soverignty and free will, stop pretending that your faith it is clear in the mind of god is an acceptable answer.
8. Correct. But don’t assume the atheist has the burden of proof for the god question. The fact that non-believers can honestly say “I don’t know” is not a point for any incoherent position you hold.
9. I’ve yet to see non-believers shelter their children from books on all sides of the argument. Now survey the restrictions christian parents place on the exposure to atheistic arguments.
If you are a christian who practices these 9 points, you are will on your way to discovering the beauty of honest thought and a life without faith. Faith is not your friend.
Wwwwwooooooww!!! Laughing so hard over here!!
1. I watch and read plenty of things that I disagree with or don’t fit my would view, the Bible would be one of them. 2. I don’t automatically assume people who disagree with me are stupid. Sometimes they are ignorant, sometimes I’m ignorant. The stupid ones are those that will not ever see reason and argue for ignorance. 3. What would be the point of getting angry with someone I’m arguing with, unless they are arguing for ignorance and then what the point of having a conversation? 4.When did reason, logic and freethinking become wrong? 5. When I ask a question I usually want an answer, but I already know the reason to the question “Why does God allow suffering” and there are two possible answers that fit perfect (a) God is awful; it says so in the Bible or (b) There is no God and bad shit just happens. 6.Why you weasley piece of scum sucking crap…just kidding. 7. How funny, I can’t think of a single Atheist quote. I literally sat here for about 10 minutes and nothing. hmm, 8. For certain I know that statement is not true because you can’t prove a negative, the person making a positive claim is the one that has the burden of proof…wait, I think that’s an Atheists quote. 9. Number nine is just sad. I would hope all people would have a rational reason for what they believe, otherwise you end up being duped into believing things that aren’t true. The funny thing about this whole article is, that I have experience most or all of 1 through 9 by most Christians.
1. You only read/watch what you already agree with.
With the rise of the internet, people are able to choose what news they get, creating something called the false-consensus effect. We all do it to varying degrees, but if this was directed at the people in the picture, the 2 people I recognise have both read the bible, and 1 of them, Christopher Hitchens, can quote the thing frontways and back. If this is just a broad statement, then technically that could be true, but coming from a church that told us not to do our own research on evolution because it’s the devil’s trap, I think we know which side wins that one.
2. “People who disagree with me are stupid!”
If that is your only defense against opposing ideas that is intellectually dishonest. It doesn’t really apply to the people shown in the picture though, they’ve both called people stupid, but these were during hour-long debates and not used as a defense tactic. You can be intellectually honest and still call someone stupid, as long as you can explain why. I haven’t heard the name “Magic Sky Clown” but I have heard “Sky Daddy”, I suppose the writer avoided that one because it’s a little too effective at pointing out the ridiculousness of the concept. Either way, as long as you can explain your argument without belittling jokes, you don’t have to refrain from saying them lol
3. You get angry with those who disagree.
Well, everyone gets frustrated sometimes but, “You convince yourself that your anger is righteous at how immoral their viewpoint is”? That’s some of the most blatant projection I’ve ever seen lol
4. You use words like ‘rational’ and ‘logical’ and ‘free-thinking’ to describe yourself.
“calling yourself logical and rational doesn’t somehow magically transform all your ideas into logical, rational ideas.” Well, that’s true, but that makes no argument to the contrary.
5. You deliver statements as though they are questions.
“A question like ‘How could God allow so much suffering?’ is a good question, but it doesn’t automatically follow that he wouldn’t”. This doesn’t even make sense. The title implies some sort of hedging by avoiding making statements and only asking questions, but the description doesn’t back that up at all in fact it uses a perfectly valid question as an example, and ironically, avoids answering it.
“Have you considered that maybe you’re using the question to shield yourself from the answer?” What does that mean? It sounds like he’s implying there’s some evil side to god we’re trying not to acknowledge lol I’m not sure even the author knows what he’s saying on this one.
6. You use ad-hominem attacks.
That’s true, using ad-hominems is intellectually dishonest, not sure how this relates to atheism other than just to imply they use them, but indirectly so he doesn’t have to have any examples to back up the claims. In other news, Fox News says SOME people are concerned if Obama is a Muslim.
7. You quote famous atheists, without being able to back up their arguments.
Throwing out quotes on a subject you don’t have a good understanding of is more naive, pushing the truth of the quotes without being able to back it up is intellectually dishonest. “An example of this would be ‘You’re an atheist when it comes to Zeus. Atheists just go one God further’. How would you respond when informed that this is a joke, not an argument? What’s your follow-up argument?” That’s not a joke, sometimes people are so entrenched in their belief of God that they literally cannot comprehend not believing and either secretly or publicly think atheists are lying or in denial. Showing how easy it is to assume Zeus isn’t real is an attempt at getting those people to understand it is possible to truly not believe in the God they believe in too.
8. You use generic catch-all phrases which show your poor hand.
“‘Everybody knows Jesus never existed’, or ‘It’s a scientific fact that science has disproven God’ work here”. Lol yes, using either of these as an argument would be intellectually dishonest.
9. You never really critique your own beliefs.
Well since atheism is a lack of belief that’s impossible. I can consider why don’t I believe what the author believes, but that’s critiquing his beliefs, which, assuming he believes the bible, is probably pretty easy. “Are your reasons for rejecting other worldviews equally rational, or does the idea of a God who has more power than you simply create a negative emotional reaction, which you then reject?” Looking at the bigger picture and seeing the evolution of religion makes it pretty easy to not take whatever current forms exist as actual truth. Once religion is out of the picture it’s just a question of were we specifically created by some intelligent omnipotent being that made things to look like they naturally occurred and leaves no direct evidence or communication with us? Or did they naturally occur? All signs point to B, no ulterior motive needed.
All in all this was a somewhat uninformed article, about 90% unabashed psychological projection.But kudos for leaving the comment section uncensored
Good article!
I’m amused at how Trey and the other atheists in the comments section reinforce #6 on the list, using ad-hominem attacks. Well played, you guys, well played.
How is it possible that two groups of educated, modern people can look at the evidence for the Resurrection claim of Jesus of Nazareth and come to such very different conclusions? How can educated Christians see the evidence for the Resurrection as so overwhelming that it is not worth their time to seriously question it, while educated Jews, Muslims, atheists, and others, find the evidence for this supernatural claim so pathetically poor and down right ridiculous?
It really is baffling to me.
Christians have frequently accused me of not believing because I don’t want to believe; that there is some ulterior motive for my deconversion from the Christian religion; that I have rejected the supernatural without sufficient evidence to do so. However, what then is the reason for the non-belief of Jews and Muslims in this supernatural claim? These groups certainly believe in supernatural acts of God. Why do these groups see the evidence for the Resurrection claim as so unconvincing? It can’t be because they don’t believe in the supernatural. Do Christians seriously believe that Jews and Muslims actually do see how strong the evidence is for the Resurrection claim, but, they have conspired to deny it, as they too have an ulterior motive for rejecting it??
This is my challenge for Christians: Demand the same level of evidence for the Resurrection claim as you would apply to the supernatural claims of any other religion.
For instance, would you believe a new religion’s claim that their recently deceased prophet flew through the air like a jet airplane just because:
1. Their holy book points to passages in the Hebrew Bible that appear to “prophesy” about the coming of this flying prophet.
2. The people who are converting to this new religion are people who do not believe in flying prophets, so for them to believe it, something really spectacular must have occurred to convince them that this prophet did fly.
3. The founders of this new religion are willing to endure persecution and even death in defense of their claim of a flying prophet.
4. The new religion spreads rapidly even under intense persecution.
5. The new religion has the written statement of one deceased man who says he saw the flying prophet himself on a deserted desert highway, and, that someone told him that 500 people, at the same time, in the same place, also saw the flying prophet.
6. And there is much more similar “evidence” for this religion’s claim of a flying prophet.
Would all of this “evidence” convince you that this new religion really did have a flying prophet? Seriously dear Christian, what evidence would you require to believe that a modern day man can fly through the air, without any mechanical assistance, at the speed and altitude of a jet airplane?
THAT is how we non-believers view your claim that a dead and decomposing first century man in Palestine was reanimated by an ancient middle-eastern god to walk out of his grave, hang out with his friends for forty days, and then levitate into outer space.
Hi Johnnie. Good thoughts. We have four articles covering some of the evidence for the Resurrection on this blog: Part 1 – The Facts of The Resurrection (Part I) Part 2 – The Facts of The Resurrection (Part II) Part 3 – The Facts of The Resurrection (Part III) Part 4 – The Facts of The Resurrection (Part IV)
I would want to agree with you that Christians ought to apply the same level of scrutiny to their own claims as to competing claims from other religions.
I think that there has been some good work done on the historical reliability for the evidence of the Resurrection. If you’re interested, perhaps we can discuss this on those blogs.
If you call yourself a Christian
My apologies for being late to this “party”. This entire article is a joke. If one simply fails to “believe” in a god then, by definition, one is an atheist. This we know. However, the believer can’t wrap their minds around this. They view the lack of belief as a poor justified arguing away of the fact that God exists. The truth of the matter, however, is that failing to believe in an unprovable magical entity requires absolutely zero careful consideration (what this author calls “intellectual honest”) from the atheist. This article is written from the presupposed position that God is either real or that proper consideration for his existence is clearly justified, and therefore shifts all burden of argument to the atheist. It then further defines to the atheist what sort of intellectual argument is fair or dishonest. What an amazing joke and common circular point of view shared by believers.
Edit to add that, yes, some atheist I have spoken with are real tools and complete dorks that do a disservice to atheism. But requiring the non-believer to provide proper support for their lack of believe, and then defining the manner in which they must demonstrate their support is typical Christian hogwash.
“You only read/watch what you already agree with.”
When I want to learn something about science I read a book published by a scientist. And I don’t necessarily agree with the scientist. First I study the evidence and then decide do I accept this, think it’s nonsense, or am not sure about it yet. If the evidence is strong I accept the idea. If I’m not impressed with evidence I throw the idea out or do some more research.
Are you suggesting I find out what science deniers say about the subject? That would be like asking a dog to explain the orbits of planets.
“You get angry with those who disagree.”
You make a lot of assumptions. If someone disagrees with me I look at his or her evidence and if necessary I say I stand corrected. If people are trying to sell a ridiculous impossible fantasy, I’m not angry, I just have contempt for their cowardly belief in nonsense that makes them feel good.
Everything you wrote is not evidence for your ridiculous belief in a magical being. Provide strong scientific evidence that justifies your magical supernatural fantasies. If you can’t do that (of course you can’t do that) then you really need to STFU.
You superstitious people disgrace the human race. Scientific progress has repeatedly showed your god fairy’s magic wand was never necessary for anything but still you people believe in it. The problem is you’re cowards. You can’t exist without your childish magical heaven fantasy.
You cowards could grow up and face facts but reality makes you cry.
‘Everybody knows Jesus never existed’
It doesn’t matter if your dead preacher was real or not. If he was real he did not have magical powers. He did not perform magical miracles. He was not the magical son of the Magic Man. We know the miracles are fantasies because of a basic fact of reality – magic is not real.
Your dead preacher, like 21st century preachers, was an uneducated moron, and too lazy to get a real j0b.
Every unbrainwashed child understands this basic fact: Magic is not real. The god-soaked don’t want to admit their childish cowardly fantasies are magical, but everyone knows that’s exactly what they believe. Everything is magic with you insane people. Don’t understand something? Then the Magic Man did it. It’s a disease you have, and for you it’s incurable. You will waste your entire pathetic life believing in magical nonsense that make you feel good.
There is much to be said/disagreed about those 9 points. But I would especially like to focus on this one:
9. You never really critique your own beliefs.
What belief?
Atheism is a lack of belief in a god. It is NOT a belief there is no god. I am an atheist because the so-called reason and evidence for god cannot stand up to
my scrutiny. I am an atheist, NOT because I have a belief that there is no god.
In other words, I don’t have a religious belief to critique about, because I lack a
religion belief. You cannot critique the wine in the bottle, if there
is no wine in the bottle to begin with.
But let’s suppose there is someone who actually BELIEVE there is no god. Sure, you ask them to critique their belief, but even if their belief is
inconsistent and problematic, how would that make your belief
(Christianity) more true? The burden of proof, still lies with you
(the Christians).
Hi Daniel. Thanks for your comments. I’m not the author, but one of the blog moderators here, and wanted to chime in with a thought of my own.
You raise some good points. What I would want to ask you is, you mention that you are an atheist because the ‘reason and evidence’ for Christianity cannot, for you, stand up to your scrutiny. To that I would ask, what makes you believe (if it’s OK to frame the question this way) that your scrutiny is reasonable? Why do you trust your mental abilities to know what is true?
I’m asking this philosophically of course – as of anyone else – not meaning to impugn your personal reasoning!
“To that I would ask, what makes you believe that your scrutiny is reasonable? ”
I don’t know of a better way to discern truth from falsity other than testing it with reason and evidence. We may not be able to know the right, but we can know the wrong.
I take it that you are a religious person, but you don’t believe ALL religions, do you? If this is the case, then you MUST have applied skepticism to the religions that you do NOT have a belief in. So my question to you is, have you honestly tested your own religion with the same skepticism that you applied to the religions that you do not believe in?
Hi Daniel. Sorry for late, late reply … this one got lost in the inbox!
Good thoughts. Can I come back to my question first, then answer yours? (I realise you have no say in this (!) so humour me here …)
Firstly. I agree that testing with ‘reason and evidence’ is important. I hope I have done that with my thinking (I’ll answer that in a bit). But going back a level, I wonder why it is that you think that reason and evidence can be trusted? How do we know that human reason is trustworthy, or an adequate basis for discovering truth?
As a Christian I would want to argue that the world is rational and understandable because there is a rational God who has created humanity with the capacity to reason. So reason can be trusted because it is grounded in a greater reality.
Secondly. I do try to afford my own faith
1) Why do I trust reason is trustworthy? I am almost tempted to say, “it’s turtle all the way down”. That’s an assumption that reason is the basis for knowing the truth. We cannot justify reason with reason, this is an infinite regression. So take it or leave it.
But you proposed, we can trust reason because your god created us with the capacity to reason. I think not only does your proposal run into the same problem of infinite regression, but it is even less stable than the assumption that reason is the basis for knowing the truth.
Here is why.
Your proposal relies on the assumption that there is a greater reality.
Your proposal relies on the assumption that in this greater reality, your god is the one who created human beings.
You proposal relies on the assumption, that your god is the one who endowed human beings with the capability to reason.
Your proposal relies on the assumption, that your god is not deceiving you by endowing you with faulty reasons.
Your proposal, reason is contingent from your god, the author of reason. So how do you know your god won’t change it? This means, you need to make another assumption that your god won’t’ change reason and rationality.
I guess you can say, your god won’t change reason and rationality because your god is rational. But does this mean your god always has to abide to rationality? I guess you can then say, your god’s nature is being rational. But this invites the question, how do you know your god is rational? I think you will just have to assume that your god is rational. At this point, I think you can see you are running into the same problem of infinite regression.
Not only that, but it seems your proposal depends on at least 6 assumptions. While I am just making 1 assumption – reason is the basis for knowing the truth. I believe this is when we should employ our dear friend Occam and his sharp razor. I find it difficult to see, how your proposal requiring 6 assumptions is superior than my proposal which requires only 1.
2) You didn’t really answer my question – what will make you stop believing your religion?
I am asking this question because I want to explore your epistemology. I want to know, is your religion testable.
I would appreciate if you can answer this question.
3) The 3 point guideline, have you tried to apply those to the supernatural claims in Christianity?
For example, the first point says:
1. Is the idea/belief logical? Does it contradict the laws of logic?
So let’s pick a belief in the supernatural claims in the Bible…. say, demonic possession. Do you think demonic possession doesn’t contradict the law of logic? If so, how is demonic possession fall into the law of logic? Perhaps, in order for us to know if demonic possession is logical, we need to first examine its mechanism. So can you please explain the mechanism of demonic possession?
1) Why do I trust reason is trustworthy? I am almost tempted to say, “it’s turtle all the way down”. That’s an assumption that reason is the basis for knowing the truth. We cannot justify reason with reason, this is an infinite regression. So take it or leave it.
But you proposed, we can trust reason because your god created us with the capacity to reason. I think not only does your proposal run into the same problem of infinite regression, but it is even less stable than the assumption that reason is the basis for knowing the truth.
Here is why.
Your proposal relies on the assumption that there is a greater reality.
Your proposal relies on the assumption that in this greater reality, your god is the one who created human beings.
You proposal relies on the assumption, that your god is the one who endowed human beings with the capability to reason.
Your proposal relies on the assumption, that your god is not deceiving you by endowing you with faulty reasons.
Your proposal, reason is contingent from your god, the author of reason. So how do you know your god won’t change it? This means, you need to make another assumption that your god won’t’ change reason and rationality.
I guess you can say, your god won’t change reason and rationality because your god is rational. But does this mean your god always has to abide to rationality? I guess you can then say, your god’s nature is being rational. But this invites the question, how do you know your god is rational? I think you will just have to assume that your god is rational. At this point, I think you can see you are running into the same problem of infinite regression.
Not only that, but it seems your proposal depends on at least 6 assumptions. While I am just making 1 assumption – reason is the basis for knowing the truth. I believe this is when we should employ our dear friend Occam and his sharp razor. I find it difficult to see, how your proposal requiring 6 assumptions is superior than my proposal which requires only 1.
2) You didn’t really answer my question – what will make you stop believing your religion?
I am asking this question because I want to explore your epistemology. I want to know, is your religion testable.
I would appreciate if you can answer this question.
3) The 3 point guideline, have you tried to apply those to the supernatural claims in Christianity?
For example, the first point says:
1. Is the idea/belief logical? Does it contradict the laws of logic?
So let’s pick a belief in the supernatural claims in the Bible…. say, demonic possession. Do you think demonic possession doesn’t contradict the law of logic? If so, how is demonic possession fall into the law of logic? Perhaps, in order for us to know if demonic possession is logical, we need to first examine its mechanism. So can you please explain the mechanism of demonic possession?
The bit about “you call yourself a freethinker” says way, way more about you than us.
You seem to be so unfamiliar with thinking that you can’t even imagin anyone actually using logic. Hell, you even claimed that “makes you fee good” has anything to do with Skepticism.
1. You only read/watch what you already agree with.
That’s called “Faith” or “Putting on your Bible glasses”. Only people who fear God punishing them for thinking do that.
2. “People who disagree with me are stupid!”
No, people who are stupid are stupid.
3. You get angry with those who disagree.
You are the ones who call yourselves “Righteous”. Hell, you’re the ones who think “righteous” is a good thing. To us, “righteous” conjures images of corrupt superheroes or religious fanatics punishing people severely for minor crimes.
4. You use words like ‘rational’ and ‘logical’ and ‘free-thinking’ to describe yourself.
Ok, so… aparantly, you are so stupid and so brainwashed that you can’t even imagine why anyone would think, so you just arbitrarily assume anyone who actuay thinks is just pretending because thinking makes your brain hurt.
You don’t even entertain the idea that people who say they use ogic actualy use logic! The idea doesn’t cross your mind! Thinking? That’s impossible!
5. You deliver statements as though they are questions.
That’s you guys.
6. You use ad-hominem attacks.
You’re accusing us of being as dumb as you. I don’t even know a word as insulting as that.
Also, grow the fuck up you whiney little pussy, grow some balls and man the fuck up you over-sensitive little crybaby.
7. You quote famous atheists, without being able to back up their arguments.
No, that’s you guys. There’s only like 4 or 5 creationists on the planet capable of independant thought, and you all copy-and-paste from them.
It is like pulling teeth to get Theists to say exactly what they mean by “kind”. Why? Because they’re not thinking about what they’re saying, they just parrot Kent Hovind.
8. You use generic catch-all phrases which show your poor hand.
“‘Everybody knows Jesus never existed’, or ‘It’s a scientific fact that science has disproven God’”
I have never said those in my life and I’ve never seen another Atheist say them. The first one is both an obvious lie and engaging in a falacy we never ever use.
A) reality is not a democracy. Why would anyone in the minority like us try using that fallacy?
B) you guys exist and you think jesus was real.
C) I don’t know that at all. I think the New Testiment was based on a real person, a psycho cult leader named Joshuah.
D) who uses the word “Science” twice in one sentence like that? That sounds like someone making fun of someone else.
In conclusion, i think you made those up.
9. You never really critique your own beliefs.
How do you think we deconverted in the first place?
“4. You use words like ‘rational’ and ‘logical’ and ‘free-thinking’ to describe yourself. These words are like verbal placebos. They create a pleasant feeling of security in us without actually proving us to be any of those things. However, calling yourself logical and rational doesn’t somehow magically transform all your ideas into logical, rational ideas.”
This says infinitely more about you than us. You don’t even entertain the idea that it can actually be the truth. It doesn’t even cross your mind that people claim to think because they, you know, think. You IMMEDIATELY assume thinking is about “feeling good” rather than thinking. If you can’t even imagine that people possess the ability to think, that means thinking is an alien concept to you, because you don’t.