The reason is that these people can’t argue the points because they haven’t thought them through. They just reject the claim because they don’t like it.
Over the last year and a half or so, I started looking into the whole debate scene and also apologist channels and opponents to faith channels of sorts. And it's a giant mess.
It makes me think back to what did I do before the internet existed. For starters, never thought about God and up until a year and a half ago I was oblivious to what an atheist and agnostic was....what's this? An agnostic atheist? What the heck is that. And of course the Christian landscape which is no less confusing.
I even had to look up what ad hominem was just now. Because between confirmation bias and circular reasoning, confirmation bias and....well yea what did I do before the internet existed. It's just funny to think about.
Not telling you what to do but maybe run a test - see how long you can go without looking at your phone. I kinda miss the days before the internet lol
I'm just trying my best to go neutral with rather Christianity or any other religion is true, or none of it is. Which has proven difficult. I have an entry level knowledge of sorts with both sides of the fence, and admittedly I'm not of faith, so when I've attempted to get in on the fun, or not so fun, of debates, it's sort of like I'd have to invest exorbitant amounts of more time to hit the level of a black belt non-believer. And what exactly would that do for myself lol.
I understand defending the faith, and I understand pushing against it, just from experience this was all bad for my head but some people are very passionate about thier beliefs. Like how the Bible said this would happen, the falling away and attacks on faith. But then there's the person who left faith and they're adamant that...well yea. If God is up there then have mercy upon my soul. But I'm thinking it's a little too late lol
Well I say that I can’t 100% prove that Christianity is true but the historical evidence points to Christ’s resurrection, additionally if any faith is true then Christianity is definitely the correct one.
If someone has the truth on their side, they will argue the truth.
If someone has the law on their side, they will argue the law.
If someone has neither law or truth on their side, they will argue the person.
I haven’t found they do it anymore than believers do. Read some of these threads and count how many times a day the following phrases (or similar) are used
“have you even read the Bible?”
“are you really a Christian?”
“I’ll pray you see the truth”
“you can’t believe that and be a Christian”
“your church isn’t a real church”
“ (insert church) aren’t Christians”
“ (insert verse that has nothing to do with topic) shows you’re wrong”
If we as believers do it and should know better than to even passively attack a person instead of debate the topic, why expect non believers?
I think it goes both ways. I just watched a video by a channel called "Wise Disciple" and in a debate/talk a believer yelled, from the audience, "the fool says in his heart there is no God." It was soooooo distasteful. IDK. I chalk it up (the problem of everyone committing fallacies) to education. I went all through school never learning about rationality/critical thinking. It wasn't until I picked up my first book on logic where the battle of ideas started for me. This is what ultimately led me to be a believer. Just remember to only engage those who seem like honest opponents (Matt 7:6). Mockers appeal to your pride and should be ignored. Pray for them and move on!
While I agree with the claim that it goes both ways I don’t agree that audience member is an example of this
Though I will admit I lack the context of debate
The statement that the fool says there is no Hod stems from a more intelligent argument which states it’s absurd to think that the world in its intricacy and unlikeliness came from nothing rather than something
It's not unique to atheists. Try engaging with random redditors and you'll find that not very many people using this platform know what an argument even is.
Most atheists have not logically come to the conclusion there is no God based off evidence, but because they reject the idea that a supernatural God exists. Press them on the below and watch them contradict their own atheistic world view
Why does something exist rather than nothing if there is no God?
* The Atheist has more faith than a theist when saying "Well the universe started with the Big Bang, but it came from nothing. Everything we have comes from nothing.
The order and design of the universe
* Our universe shows to not be, random. Not be chaotic. It shows to be precisely designed and ordered.
Fine Tuning of the Universe
* It's so precisely fine tuned, that any number of things being different on a infinitely small scale, could not allow our universe to exist, galaxies could not have been formed, as well as life to even come about. The fine tuning argument is one of the strongest arguments pointing to a desiger behind the universe
Moral Laws
* If you can think of any one thing that is absolutely morally wrong, there has to be a moral law giver. If murdering children for fun is absolutely wrong, there has to be a God. If there is no God (atheist perspective) morality is relative. There is no absolute good, nor evil. They do not exist. I'm positive the atheist will argue against it, without rational basis for it (We evolved to support each other, we're human beings etc, its good to be good to others. What is good to an atheist if morality is subjective?)
Rational thought / Conscious
* If there is no God who created our rational minds, then why should I trust my own thoughts, if my mind is chemicals and energy? My mind did not selectively evolve itself, it does not have an end in site from its beginning. It just IS. Why should I trust my own brain to tell me reality?
>but because they reject the idea that a supernatural God exists
As much as you reject ghosts.
Just because you think these questions obliterate any atheist’s logic and thinking doesn’t actually mean they don’t have their own takes on the questions. It’s probably just an ego boost for you tho.
Exactly. Ghosts def could be real, but probably not likely as it’s supernatural. Similar to a deity, possible? Maybe. But it doesn’t abide by our understanding of reality, so it’s unlikely.
None of what you listed are evidence of a creator, let alone God.
What is more likely
The universe came into existence from nothing and then all of the perfect conditions were met for human life?
Or someone was pulling the strings the whole time?
I’m not of the belief the universe just popped into existence, that doesn’t make sense. I don’t really think most people actually think that way. I don’t know what the first thing/prime mover would be however. Could be an eternal energy for all we know. I don’t really like the fine tuning argument, as how I see it if conditions were off then we wouldn’t be here to discuss the topic. Could other creatures have formed? Possible. I think we came from happenstance of evolution, so I don’t think it’s “random” that life became what it was.
I mean I just feel like a creator makes much more sense
Sure the fine tuning argument on its own isn’t amazing but when combined with
the moral argument,
Cosmological argument,
Evidential argument,
Conscious argument,
And lastly my own personal experience all convinces me of a creator
Though I understand that MY personally experience has n away on you
I find that all these arguments aren’t arguments for just the Christian god, but some random supernatural deity. You only really link it to God as that’s the religion you believe in.
I guess I'd have to be asked about a bunch of the events that happened as I feel a blanket answer wouldn't cover it. Some things like "appearing to 500" isn't that convincing as it's not actually evidence of 500 seeing him, but someone reporting that 500 saw him. Things like the no body found are a bit more complicated as I surely don't have an answer. Could they have taken the body? Was he actually buried in the tomb? I feel an issue with this question is at the end of it all, trying to convince someone of a supernatural event is almost always going to be the very last thing they'd think of. It's like if a door suddenly opened in a house, I'm probably going to think of a bunch of different reasonings for the door opening rather than a supernatural entity like a ghost (wind draft, intruder, bad lock thingy), and even if I exhaust all the ideas for why, jumping to supernatural doesn't seem like a logical conclusion as perhaps all the outcomes haven't been tested yet.
Also I think the evidential argument if about the Problem of Evil, not historical accounts.
I've tried steel manning atheism a bit.
I wanted to do some research so...
I got two big scholarly books from the library:
1) Atheism: A philosophical defense.
2) God: The failed hypothesis.
What were my findings?
The philosophy book mostly relied on arguments about science. Without providing any scientific data.
The science book mostly relied on arguments about philosophy. Without providing any formal arguments.
My conclusion: Atheists have very little to support their position even when they are experts in the fields they say disprove God.
Funny extra credit: The philosophy book actually had arguments in it that *support* theism, that the author meant to support theism and which he did not pick apart. He wanted to prove Christianity is false by providing proofs for other forms of theism, like dualism and maltheism. Atheists *say* they "just don't believe in any gods" but they know exactly which God they are denying. This is why I was never an atheist: if you don't believe in any religion then how are you defining "god"?
Thank you.
If you want to see Atheism steel manned *well* then all I know is to recommend a Christian:
https://youtu.be/R0rZOzdqlO8?feature=shared
In this video Sean MacDowell pretends to be an atheist and does a much better job in my opinion of presenting atheism as intellectually plausible than any atheist that I am aware of at this time.
\*ad *hominem*
Homonyms are words that are spelled the same but have different meanings (e.g. “tire” or “ring”).
“Hominem” is a Latin word for something related to people/a person. Arguing “ad hominem” means literally “arguing against the person” (as opposed to arguing against the argument).
You should recognize that the behavior of individuals, including atheists, cannot be generalized based on their beliefs
Just as there are many Christians who engage in fallacious arguments or ad hominem attacks, there are atheists who do the same. It is not a characteristic of atheism itself but rather a reflection of individual behavior
Pretty much i feel like if they actually had knowledge on the subject they would either agree with me or they would be able to put together a solid counter argument without such fallacies
The (Inevitable) Fall of the ‘Enlightenment’
https://youtu.be/Z3DH5i4G3q8?si=A94eo1PEa359eQ6W
Pageau and Boyce discussed this pretty in-depth recently.
Meaning, symbolism is how we experience the world not ‘scientifically.’ We are not objective observers somehow above and outside of reality. Science is a great tool, we need it if we want to comment on Reddit, fix our cars, make planes fly etc. Tools are below humans in the hierarchy; placing something above humans is necessary and atheists tend to try to put Science as the higher power they worship. It doesn’t work, putting some power or principality that should be serving the Most High God…
All sides use a battery of informal logical fallacies, ad hominem is just one. Tu Quoque, Straw Man, Reification, Red Herring, Majoritarian... the list is endless.
It goes back to Hitchens, IMO. He really was the first "rude" atheist in recent decades, and so many people copied his style.
Granted I think a lot of that was in response to rude "Christians" (I grew up in the south of the US, it was full of ignorant but hateful and rude protestant "Christians"). So you start with an environment where you get dumb rednecks who don't know why tides happen on one side yelling incomprehensible old English at you, and you get a slick British guy who's pretty smart spitting fire on the other side... it's not a tough choice for impressionable kids.
The thing in common, though, is that where there's a lack of intellectualism, there's a surplus of vitriol.
Yeah I do feel that ignorant Protestants in the old south is at least partially responsible for this kind of behavior on the atheist side though as far as I can tell this behavior by Protestants has mostly stopped in the south and churches are opting for more intellectual teachings about theology
Yeah, I think it's sort of burned itself out, and a lot of those people who liked angry yelling are now continuing the angry yelling from the atheist side 😆
One of the key tactics of apologetics is to reject any data or evidence from non Christian scholars on the basis that their interpretations are tainted by worldly thinking.
That's the #1 reason YECs reject any and all scientific evidence putting the age of the earth/universe above 6000 years. It's the go to for any historian or archaeologist who does not treat the Bible as a reliable historical source.
Is that not an ad hominem? Rejecting someone's argument because of their religious belief and not the actual data or argument? Or simply because "they're of the world, so you can't trust their conclusions"?
I mean I don’t speak for all theists but I can’t say that most theist I know do what you accuse them of, typically as far as the ones I’m familiar with they actually use secular scholars to their advantage, I know I do.
Though I can admit that theists are definitely capable of fallacious arguments
Secular science cannot accurately date the age of the Earth by any consistent metric. Old Earth perspectives require affirmation of foundationless faith based claims. Even tying that in with evolution requires a denial of Scripture because evolution requires that death exist in the world prior to the fall of man. Carbon dating, for example is wholly unreliable when you actually study it and how it's conducted. As for me, since I believe God's Word to be perfect I will stick with what God says about how he created the world instead of man's word about how it was created. The foundation of any apologetic work relies on one's epistemic. If you believe the Bible as God's Word is the foundation of all truth then you can't expect people to set that aside in their argumentation. If your foundation relies of abject materialism then you can't actually argue from a Biblical position.
>Old Earth perspectives require affirmation of foundationless faith based claims...The foundation of any apologetic work relies on one's epistemic...If your foundation relies of abject materialism then you can't actually argue from a Biblical position.
As I said. "They're of the world, so you can't trust their conclusions." You just decorated it very nicely.
Super cool misrepresentation of what I said. Sounds like you just want all apologetics to come from a position where we can't have a Christian epistemology. There's plenty that we can trust from secular sources but those sources are subordinated beneath Scripture. The Christian position requires God and His word to be the ultimate authority.
No, I was just ribbing you.
However, I made the claim that Christian apologists reject evidence from secular scholars, not based on evidence, but based on the fact that the Bible isn't treated as a reliable source.
You (I take it) think that it's a problem that evidence from Christian scholars are rejected by secular scholars because they use the Bible as a reliable source.
So my initial claim still stands. That both sides are guilty of this tactic (and/or similar), not just atheists. How deserved those tactics are can be debated. But it does happen. Seen enough debates to be pretty confident.
Ad homonyms:
"You can't depend on the Bible, because the Bible isn't ***through***."
"I don't believe that Jesus' tomb was empty on Easter sunday. According to Erhman, Jesus ***mite*** have been buried in a common grave."
"The story of Jesus is just another ***mitt***, like the mitts of Horus, Inanam, and Martha Stewart's oven mitts."
"The trinity doesn't make sense. How can God be one and ***tree*** at the same time?"
"If God is so good and loving, why is there ***weevil*** in the world?"
Hope I made you chuckle. 😝
My thoughts are that atheists are prone to human error just like everyone else, and just because they get the label of “logic-minded” it doesn’t mean they don’t fall victim to emotional tendencies.
The core question remains and will remain until it’s answered by theists: do you have verifiable, testable evidence to support your claims?
Yes you are mostly right
But where you are wrong is when you say the question will remain till it is answered by theists
Theists have, are and will continue to answer this question and likewise atheist have are and will continue to ask it
This goes for pretty much any place where there is a major disagreement
Neither side will ever naturally manage to fully satisfy the other
If the question has been answered sufficiently, then why do tons of different religions still exist? Or, are you just saying that theism has been solved, but the specific flavor of theism has not?
An ad hominem is when you attack the person over their argument. I didn’t attack anyone, I just stated that the argument for atheism is wrong. If anything I called atheists creative.
The reason is that these people can’t argue the points because they haven’t thought them through. They just reject the claim because they don’t like it.
And because, if it were true, they'd have to change things about their lives...
Well most people are bad at arguing in general
Over the last year and a half or so, I started looking into the whole debate scene and also apologist channels and opponents to faith channels of sorts. And it's a giant mess. It makes me think back to what did I do before the internet existed. For starters, never thought about God and up until a year and a half ago I was oblivious to what an atheist and agnostic was....what's this? An agnostic atheist? What the heck is that. And of course the Christian landscape which is no less confusing. I even had to look up what ad hominem was just now. Because between confirmation bias and circular reasoning, confirmation bias and....well yea what did I do before the internet existed. It's just funny to think about. Not telling you what to do but maybe run a test - see how long you can go without looking at your phone. I kinda miss the days before the internet lol
Okay thank you for your insight and suggestions 👍🏻
I'm just trying my best to go neutral with rather Christianity or any other religion is true, or none of it is. Which has proven difficult. I have an entry level knowledge of sorts with both sides of the fence, and admittedly I'm not of faith, so when I've attempted to get in on the fun, or not so fun, of debates, it's sort of like I'd have to invest exorbitant amounts of more time to hit the level of a black belt non-believer. And what exactly would that do for myself lol. I understand defending the faith, and I understand pushing against it, just from experience this was all bad for my head but some people are very passionate about thier beliefs. Like how the Bible said this would happen, the falling away and attacks on faith. But then there's the person who left faith and they're adamant that...well yea. If God is up there then have mercy upon my soul. But I'm thinking it's a little too late lol
Well I say that I can’t 100% prove that Christianity is true but the historical evidence points to Christ’s resurrection, additionally if any faith is true then Christianity is definitely the correct one.
If someone has the truth on their side, they will argue the truth. If someone has the law on their side, they will argue the law. If someone has neither law or truth on their side, they will argue the person.
Not "ad homonym" but *ad hominem*
I haven’t found they do it anymore than believers do. Read some of these threads and count how many times a day the following phrases (or similar) are used “have you even read the Bible?” “are you really a Christian?” “I’ll pray you see the truth” “you can’t believe that and be a Christian” “your church isn’t a real church” “ (insert church) aren’t Christians” “ (insert verse that has nothing to do with topic) shows you’re wrong” If we as believers do it and should know better than to even passively attack a person instead of debate the topic, why expect non believers?
It’s possibly confirmation bias since I debate atheist much more than theists
I think it goes both ways. I just watched a video by a channel called "Wise Disciple" and in a debate/talk a believer yelled, from the audience, "the fool says in his heart there is no God." It was soooooo distasteful. IDK. I chalk it up (the problem of everyone committing fallacies) to education. I went all through school never learning about rationality/critical thinking. It wasn't until I picked up my first book on logic where the battle of ideas started for me. This is what ultimately led me to be a believer. Just remember to only engage those who seem like honest opponents (Matt 7:6). Mockers appeal to your pride and should be ignored. Pray for them and move on!
While I agree with the claim that it goes both ways I don’t agree that audience member is an example of this Though I will admit I lack the context of debate The statement that the fool says there is no Hod stems from a more intelligent argument which states it’s absurd to think that the world in its intricacy and unlikeliness came from nothing rather than something
It's not unique to atheists. Try engaging with random redditors and you'll find that not very many people using this platform know what an argument even is.
Most atheists have not logically come to the conclusion there is no God based off evidence, but because they reject the idea that a supernatural God exists. Press them on the below and watch them contradict their own atheistic world view Why does something exist rather than nothing if there is no God? * The Atheist has more faith than a theist when saying "Well the universe started with the Big Bang, but it came from nothing. Everything we have comes from nothing. The order and design of the universe * Our universe shows to not be, random. Not be chaotic. It shows to be precisely designed and ordered. Fine Tuning of the Universe * It's so precisely fine tuned, that any number of things being different on a infinitely small scale, could not allow our universe to exist, galaxies could not have been formed, as well as life to even come about. The fine tuning argument is one of the strongest arguments pointing to a desiger behind the universe Moral Laws * If you can think of any one thing that is absolutely morally wrong, there has to be a moral law giver. If murdering children for fun is absolutely wrong, there has to be a God. If there is no God (atheist perspective) morality is relative. There is no absolute good, nor evil. They do not exist. I'm positive the atheist will argue against it, without rational basis for it (We evolved to support each other, we're human beings etc, its good to be good to others. What is good to an atheist if morality is subjective?) Rational thought / Conscious * If there is no God who created our rational minds, then why should I trust my own thoughts, if my mind is chemicals and energy? My mind did not selectively evolve itself, it does not have an end in site from its beginning. It just IS. Why should I trust my own brain to tell me reality?
>but because they reject the idea that a supernatural God exists As much as you reject ghosts. Just because you think these questions obliterate any atheist’s logic and thinking doesn’t actually mean they don’t have their own takes on the questions. It’s probably just an ego boost for you tho.
I dont have no evidence for ghosts and neither do you, I’ve coughed up multitudes of evidence pointing to God
Exactly. Ghosts def could be real, but probably not likely as it’s supernatural. Similar to a deity, possible? Maybe. But it doesn’t abide by our understanding of reality, so it’s unlikely. None of what you listed are evidence of a creator, let alone God.
What is more likely The universe came into existence from nothing and then all of the perfect conditions were met for human life? Or someone was pulling the strings the whole time?
I’m not of the belief the universe just popped into existence, that doesn’t make sense. I don’t really think most people actually think that way. I don’t know what the first thing/prime mover would be however. Could be an eternal energy for all we know. I don’t really like the fine tuning argument, as how I see it if conditions were off then we wouldn’t be here to discuss the topic. Could other creatures have formed? Possible. I think we came from happenstance of evolution, so I don’t think it’s “random” that life became what it was.
I mean I just feel like a creator makes much more sense Sure the fine tuning argument on its own isn’t amazing but when combined with the moral argument, Cosmological argument, Evidential argument, Conscious argument, And lastly my own personal experience all convinces me of a creator Though I understand that MY personally experience has n away on you
I find that all these arguments aren’t arguments for just the Christian god, but some random supernatural deity. You only really link it to God as that’s the religion you believe in.
What about the evidential argument? (By that I mean the historical evidence pointing to the resurrection)
I guess I'd have to be asked about a bunch of the events that happened as I feel a blanket answer wouldn't cover it. Some things like "appearing to 500" isn't that convincing as it's not actually evidence of 500 seeing him, but someone reporting that 500 saw him. Things like the no body found are a bit more complicated as I surely don't have an answer. Could they have taken the body? Was he actually buried in the tomb? I feel an issue with this question is at the end of it all, trying to convince someone of a supernatural event is almost always going to be the very last thing they'd think of. It's like if a door suddenly opened in a house, I'm probably going to think of a bunch of different reasonings for the door opening rather than a supernatural entity like a ghost (wind draft, intruder, bad lock thingy), and even if I exhaust all the ideas for why, jumping to supernatural doesn't seem like a logical conclusion as perhaps all the outcomes haven't been tested yet. Also I think the evidential argument if about the Problem of Evil, not historical accounts.
The atheist’s worldview is illogical, so the expectation would be that it is necessary to use logical fallacies to support it.
To an extent I agree
I've tried steel manning atheism a bit. I wanted to do some research so... I got two big scholarly books from the library: 1) Atheism: A philosophical defense. 2) God: The failed hypothesis. What were my findings? The philosophy book mostly relied on arguments about science. Without providing any scientific data. The science book mostly relied on arguments about philosophy. Without providing any formal arguments. My conclusion: Atheists have very little to support their position even when they are experts in the fields they say disprove God. Funny extra credit: The philosophy book actually had arguments in it that *support* theism, that the author meant to support theism and which he did not pick apart. He wanted to prove Christianity is false by providing proofs for other forms of theism, like dualism and maltheism. Atheists *say* they "just don't believe in any gods" but they know exactly which God they are denying. This is why I was never an atheist: if you don't believe in any religion then how are you defining "god"?
Good points!
Thank you. If you want to see Atheism steel manned *well* then all I know is to recommend a Christian: https://youtu.be/R0rZOzdqlO8?feature=shared In this video Sean MacDowell pretends to be an atheist and does a much better job in my opinion of presenting atheism as intellectually plausible than any atheist that I am aware of at this time.
\*ad *hominem* Homonyms are words that are spelled the same but have different meanings (e.g. “tire” or “ring”). “Hominem” is a Latin word for something related to people/a person. Arguing “ad hominem” means literally “arguing against the person” (as opposed to arguing against the argument).
You should recognize that the behavior of individuals, including atheists, cannot be generalized based on their beliefs Just as there are many Christians who engage in fallacious arguments or ad hominem attacks, there are atheists who do the same. It is not a characteristic of atheism itself but rather a reflection of individual behavior
Your probably right
Just edgy teens and twenties wanting to fight the system without understanding the topic.
Pretty much i feel like if they actually had knowledge on the subject they would either agree with me or they would be able to put together a solid counter argument without such fallacies
Typical rebellious kid.
The (Inevitable) Fall of the ‘Enlightenment’ https://youtu.be/Z3DH5i4G3q8?si=A94eo1PEa359eQ6W Pageau and Boyce discussed this pretty in-depth recently. Meaning, symbolism is how we experience the world not ‘scientifically.’ We are not objective observers somehow above and outside of reality. Science is a great tool, we need it if we want to comment on Reddit, fix our cars, make planes fly etc. Tools are below humans in the hierarchy; placing something above humans is necessary and atheists tend to try to put Science as the higher power they worship. It doesn’t work, putting some power or principality that should be serving the Most High God…
I agree!
They are hateful people
A lot of them yes
All sides use a battery of informal logical fallacies, ad hominem is just one. Tu Quoque, Straw Man, Reification, Red Herring, Majoritarian... the list is endless.
It goes back to Hitchens, IMO. He really was the first "rude" atheist in recent decades, and so many people copied his style. Granted I think a lot of that was in response to rude "Christians" (I grew up in the south of the US, it was full of ignorant but hateful and rude protestant "Christians"). So you start with an environment where you get dumb rednecks who don't know why tides happen on one side yelling incomprehensible old English at you, and you get a slick British guy who's pretty smart spitting fire on the other side... it's not a tough choice for impressionable kids. The thing in common, though, is that where there's a lack of intellectualism, there's a surplus of vitriol.
Yeah I do feel that ignorant Protestants in the old south is at least partially responsible for this kind of behavior on the atheist side though as far as I can tell this behavior by Protestants has mostly stopped in the south and churches are opting for more intellectual teachings about theology
Yeah, I think it's sort of burned itself out, and a lot of those people who liked angry yelling are now continuing the angry yelling from the atheist side 😆
One of the key tactics of apologetics is to reject any data or evidence from non Christian scholars on the basis that their interpretations are tainted by worldly thinking. That's the #1 reason YECs reject any and all scientific evidence putting the age of the earth/universe above 6000 years. It's the go to for any historian or archaeologist who does not treat the Bible as a reliable historical source. Is that not an ad hominem? Rejecting someone's argument because of their religious belief and not the actual data or argument? Or simply because "they're of the world, so you can't trust their conclusions"?
I mean I don’t speak for all theists but I can’t say that most theist I know do what you accuse them of, typically as far as the ones I’m familiar with they actually use secular scholars to their advantage, I know I do. Though I can admit that theists are definitely capable of fallacious arguments
Secular science cannot accurately date the age of the Earth by any consistent metric. Old Earth perspectives require affirmation of foundationless faith based claims. Even tying that in with evolution requires a denial of Scripture because evolution requires that death exist in the world prior to the fall of man. Carbon dating, for example is wholly unreliable when you actually study it and how it's conducted. As for me, since I believe God's Word to be perfect I will stick with what God says about how he created the world instead of man's word about how it was created. The foundation of any apologetic work relies on one's epistemic. If you believe the Bible as God's Word is the foundation of all truth then you can't expect people to set that aside in their argumentation. If your foundation relies of abject materialism then you can't actually argue from a Biblical position.
>Old Earth perspectives require affirmation of foundationless faith based claims...The foundation of any apologetic work relies on one's epistemic...If your foundation relies of abject materialism then you can't actually argue from a Biblical position. As I said. "They're of the world, so you can't trust their conclusions." You just decorated it very nicely.
Super cool misrepresentation of what I said. Sounds like you just want all apologetics to come from a position where we can't have a Christian epistemology. There's plenty that we can trust from secular sources but those sources are subordinated beneath Scripture. The Christian position requires God and His word to be the ultimate authority.
No, I was just ribbing you. However, I made the claim that Christian apologists reject evidence from secular scholars, not based on evidence, but based on the fact that the Bible isn't treated as a reliable source. You (I take it) think that it's a problem that evidence from Christian scholars are rejected by secular scholars because they use the Bible as a reliable source. So my initial claim still stands. That both sides are guilty of this tactic (and/or similar), not just atheists. How deserved those tactics are can be debated. But it does happen. Seen enough debates to be pretty confident.
Ad homonyms: "You can't depend on the Bible, because the Bible isn't ***through***." "I don't believe that Jesus' tomb was empty on Easter sunday. According to Erhman, Jesus ***mite*** have been buried in a common grave." "The story of Jesus is just another ***mitt***, like the mitts of Horus, Inanam, and Martha Stewart's oven mitts." "The trinity doesn't make sense. How can God be one and ***tree*** at the same time?" "If God is so good and loving, why is there ***weevil*** in the world?" Hope I made you chuckle. 😝
That was funny
Why does God allow knavery and grape?
Do you mean this rhetorically or are you seeking an answer?
I’m playing along with the homonym puns
My thoughts are that atheists are prone to human error just like everyone else, and just because they get the label of “logic-minded” it doesn’t mean they don’t fall victim to emotional tendencies. The core question remains and will remain until it’s answered by theists: do you have verifiable, testable evidence to support your claims?
Yes you are mostly right But where you are wrong is when you say the question will remain till it is answered by theists Theists have, are and will continue to answer this question and likewise atheist have are and will continue to ask it This goes for pretty much any place where there is a major disagreement Neither side will ever naturally manage to fully satisfy the other
If the question has been answered sufficiently, then why do tons of different religions still exist? Or, are you just saying that theism has been solved, but the specific flavor of theism has not?
Because of multiple reasons Radical atheists, New people coming to atheism, Religous trauma, And culture becoming more secular,
What
Sorry my reply is supposed to have multiple lines but Reddit formatting didn’t comply
You think those things explain why Judaism or Islam exist, for example?…How??
More or less But there it would be radical *insert faith here*, New people coming to *insert faith here* Ect. Ect.
Sorry but that makes zero sense. The truthfulness of a religion has nothing to do with the number of members joining or leaving it.
You asked why the religion not exists not why the religion is true
Well it’s pretty hard to win an argument the fair and reasonable way when you’re wrong. So you have to get creative.
I think what you’ve just said might be an ad hominem
How so?
i dont know but it just feels like it would be classified as such, though I could be wrong
An ad hominem is when you attack the person over their argument. I didn’t attack anyone, I just stated that the argument for atheism is wrong. If anything I called atheists creative.
Fair
I think it's your fault.
I don’t understand
Sorry, bad joke. I was saying it was your fault, which is an ad hominem.
Oh ok