Dave, as i read this I thought to myself, he doesn't think of me as an equal. He looks down his nose at me. As I'm writing he looks for loopholes. He doesn't think I was sincere. I'm probably not even a person to him. [Of, course the net is impersonal anyway so some of this is excusable]. I dare say Dave that if YOU were to write about your CONVERSION story I could pick it apart no matter how much you write too IF I DIDN'T CONSIDER YOU TO BE A SINCERE AND HONEST AND THOUGHTFUL PERSON. So, that's where I'll leave it. I can have no dialogue with a person who doesn't take seriously what I write. You assume so many things in your favor against me that this is completely unfair. If I wanted to waste my time here I could show many things where you just assumed things that are untrue in order to make your case against me. You write as if you understand me and my deconversion with only the few words excerpted from my book, and you cannot do that. Something to remember in the future: You could say "I'm not sure what he meant here" and leave it at that. Or you could ask questions, like "what could he say that would show that his faith is deep?" But no! You assume answers to all of these questions and write against them as if you knew me from what little you wrote. I could just as easily denounce you right now for many of the same reasons, since you are an apologist too. You're a joke. I'm surprised you have an audience. You're also a psychologist, eh? Wow! What a presumption. Not even a good psychotherapist would prescribe anything without further clarification. Again, you're a joke.
*Remember, "if we expose ourselves to skepticism and don't have the equipment to defend our faith we are dead meat." This assumes that I am intellectually challenged, as if a smarter person is all that is needed to do the work of an apologist, and that quite frankly is stupid of you. Then you mention the fictitious Job and also Carrie Ten Boom. If John only has more faith he wouldn't have....etc etc. According to you I was not up to the intellectual challenge and deficient of faith. That about explains me away. Thanks for actually and truly considering what I had to say--not. But I do challenge you to read my book. Until you do this you won't understand and you cannot offer a good critique of why I rejected Christianity. But if you get it, read it all the way through before you comment. I dare you.
Until then don't bother me again. I'm through with a backseat psychotherapist who claims to be able to prescribe a solution to what ails me before he truly understands me. And your confidence is utterly amazing. How can you really claim to understand the Bible and church pronouncements if you cannot understand what I write? It's the exact same exegetical skills here. They are both documents written by people. Sheesh. You're a joke, and I just don't have the time to teach you what you need to understand. Anyon
Your words are in italics:
generally this indicates a less-than-stellar foundational Christian teaching
So him being in trouble is worse than you losing faith? Seems odd to claim, esp given some Biblical characters, whose troubles were always overcome by faith, rather than vice versa.
Even that won't suffice to prevent apostasy if there are other deficiencies because the mind is only one aspect of a well-rounded faith.
Do you think that belief is not a completely mental affair?
Much philosophy can make one go astray as well, if too much skeptical and fallacious philosophy takes hold on one's brain. But in the end it comes down to God's grace and whether we accept it and continue to live by it, or reject it.
I can honestly say that this is why I no longer believe -- atheological and philosophical arguments.
It seems you have an interesting change-up in views -- before you are emphasizing the integral issue of apologia, now you are cautioning those who may want to build defenses not to allow "much philosophy" to "take hold"...how can a Christian interested in answering doubts and such know which philosophical ideas will "take hold", and does this "taking hold" indicate that the philosophical arguments are actually strong?
Your answer seems to waver here as you indicate God's grace, something that always seems difficult to flesh out from free will. Do you think God's grace may be lessened or withdrawn if someone is reading "bad" philosophical ideas? Do you liken such reading to going into a strip club and expecting God to protect you from it? The philosophical arguments are as "seductive"? Is it perhaps because they are sound and difficult to reply to?
There is a reason many Christians lose their faith in college.
I wrote a post on this phenomenon. Do you think it possible that it is because many Christians are insulated from the most serious objections to faith, and evidence that damages their conception thereof? I certainly do. I think this is a huge reason for it -- the whole reason for going to college is to enlarge your borders/perspectives/knowledge, but this is dangerous to any religion. All religions work via identifying "us/them" and most have a protective effect (purge "them" if they infiltrate "us").
lest we get duped by truly stupid, utterly unnecessary dichotomies such as this "dogma vs. philosophy" or "faith vs. reason" claptrap
Responding to this adequately would take a lot of time, so I would just quote Aquinas and Gregory the Great:
Aquinas said, "“If our opponent believes nothing of divine revelation, there is no longer any means of proving the articles of faith by reasoning, but only of answering his objections--if he has any--against faith.” He admits this directly after quoting Gregory the Great, “fait
It cuts off the comments at 250 words, so I'll post this comment at DC.
"I dare say Dave that if YOU were to write about your CONVERSION story I could pick it apart no matter how much you write too IF I DIDN'T CONSIDER YOU TO BE A SINCERE AND HONEST AND THOUGHTFUL PERSON."
Where did Dave question your sincerity, honesty, or your being a thoughtful person?
"I can have no dialogue with a person who doesn't take seriously what I write."
I had a different impression of Dave's critique -- that he was taking seriously what you wrote. That's why he wrote a lengthy critique rather than dismissing it out of hand.
"You assume so many things in your favor against me that this is completely unfair. If I wanted to waste my time here I could show many things where you just assumed things that are untrue in order to make your case against me."
The preliminary nature of the critique seems pretty evident to me, and I understand that many of his criticisms necessarily were of a tentative nature. In his internet critique of your summary of your "deconversion," he was interacting with what you have posted on the internet. Dave does internet apologetics and carries on dialogues and debates online, after all. But if you aren't interesting in "wasting your time" explaining how and why Dave's criticisms are unfounded, we aren't going to be able to find out how they're unfounded (unless we buy your book, that is).
"You write as if you understand me and my deconversion with only the few words excerpted from my book, and you cannot do that."
No, he wasn't writing that way. But again, if you're not willing to counter his criticisms with explanations, we won't be able to reach any conclusions about the arguments and information that led to your adoption of atheism.
I see he has made a forum for the problem of evil to debate a thiest except Dave.
Well shoot, just when it was getting good, people are fleeing for the hills.
I do think the reason behind the reason for his conversion is a lack of a reliable authority to interpete scripture. One thing many christians do to get around this problem is they pick one tradition and decide it is the right one. Then they simply reject any biblical arguments against that tradition as being a dangerous twisting of scripture. Often they will even refuse to listen to arguments against their preferred way of reading scripture. Why spend time on them if it will only cause doubt?
The trouble with John is he suddenly found his tradition to be wrong on one key point. That is the insistence on a young earth. Dave argues that there are lots of christian traditions that don't insist on that and he is right. The trouble is it opens the floodgates to questions about what else is my tradition wrong about? How can I know what pieces of it to accept and what to reject. Where is the standard? You can change you thinking on the creation/evolution but admitting the thinkers you don't respect are right and the thinkers you do respect are wrong completely shakes up you way of evaluating truth claims.
The only answer of course is to embrace a christian tradition that cannot be proven wrong. Praise God that there is such a tradition. Other wise we would all be stuck in the same trap John was in. I think John's conclusion is logical. If Christians don't have a reliable way of determining what the bible says about key issues then Jesus left us with a highly defective system. If he really did leave us with a highly defective system than why should we beleive He is God? That makes sense except Jesus didn't leave us with Sola Scriptora as a system. If you are not willing to question that then John's conclusion is logical. I never went there because I knew in my spirit that Jesus was God but I could see how someone might.
When Dave says this is scary he is right. It show how you need to be on the rock to be safe from this kind of attack. If your tradition has one false teaching the Devil can expose it and cause you to lose your entire faith. Especially if you have entrenched negative ideas about becoming Catholic. You might not even consider going to the one tradition that has survived all such attacks.
John,
Dave is definitely not looking down his nose at you! He never implied you were less than a person and if he didn’t take what you wrote seriously he would not have responded to you at all! He commented on what he had to work with. Instead of wasting your time telling him he’s a “joke” tell him why you disagree in a logical, civil manner.
I agree with Scott. Just when it was getting exciting it’s over! Major let down!
Here is my counter-reply to John's "response":
>Dave, as i read this I thought to myself, he doesn't think of me as an equal.
Quite the contrary; we're all sinners. No one is any better, at bottom, than anyone else. Whatever good is in us is because of God's grace, not our inherent superiority to someone else.
>He looks down his nose at me.
Not at all. I simply disagree with your positions and your denigration of Christianity. Your position is not you. If you write about such things publicly, then do you not expect that Christians will respond to them? You actually encouraged me to respond to your deconversion, so I did.
>As I'm writing he looks for loopholes. He doesn't think I was sincere.
Really? That's news to me. I never remotely implied such a thing; nor do I believe it. Your problem (at least insofar as this version of your story suggests) is intellectual, not a matter of dishonesty.
Bad premises lead to bad conclusions. I didn't see anything that would bring any Christian doctrine into question at all. Sorry, that's my honest opinion. Or am I dishonest?
>I'm probably not even a person to him.
Wow. Well, I know one thing: you are extremely sensitive to Christian critiques, even when done respectfully and not attacking you as a person or immoral scoundrel, etc. I can understand that, but it has the effect of alienating those (such as myself) who simply don't have the attitudes you are attributing to them.
I understand that many Christians have treated you rottenly. I've seen some recent things that shocked me and were terrible witnesses to Christianity. That's contemptible. But I am not among them. I don't share their attitudes. I never said you were especially evil (more than any other sinner, of whom I am foremost) or damned, etc. Catholics (to their credit, and we have many faults, believe me) generally don't do that. We leave those judgments up to God.
>[Of, course the net is impersonal anyway so some of this is excusable].
This is true. But I take great pains not to fall into the common shortcomings of Internet discourse. You think I've attacked your person? Good grief. You should see the amazing things that are written about me. And the worst comes from fellow Christians (some of them even Catholics).
>I dare say Dave that if YOU were to write about your CONVERSION story I could pick it apart no matter how much you write too IF I DIDN'T CONSIDER YOU TO BE A SINCERE AND HONEST AND THOUGHTFUL PERSON.
That's right, just like so-called Catholics have said I'm not honest and a big liar and have made themselves ridiculous and have wrecked their own credibility. But assuming you think I am honest, I have several versions of my conversion story online. Feel free. It's always fun to have people analyze one's conversion.
Now get this straight, John (in big capital letters):
I *****DO***** CONSIDER YOU TO BE A SINCERE AND HONEST AND THOUGHTFUL PERSON.
G
(cont.)
. . . Got that? Now if you say I am lying, then obviously all discourse is over. But it wasn't because of me. God is my witness for that, and also (since you think He doesn't exist) all who have read our exchanges.
>So, that's where I'll leave it. I can have no dialogue with a person who doesn't take seriously what I write.
Is that why I spent a good 3-4 hours last night, answering to the best of my ability? If I didn't take you seriously, I would simply ignore you, just like I do (almost always) the anti-Catholics, liberal Catholics, "traditionalist" Catholics, flat-earthers, etc. You have it exactly backwards, and it is amazing how often you do that.
>You assume so many things in your favor against me that this is completely unfair.
Is it? I was simply resplying to the reasoning you gave. Sorry you don't like that, but this is how intellectual exchange works. It's astonishing to me that you have such a thin skin, especially since you have an academic past. Are you truly this unable to withstand any critique? If so, then I suggest to you that you don't encourage a person to analyze your deconversion, if this is how you're gonna react. It'll keep your blood pressure down to an acceptable level.
>If I wanted to waste my time here I could show many things where you just assumed things that are untrue in order to make your case against me.
I would welcome that. Then we would threaten to actually have a dialogue. Imagine that!
>You write as if you understand me and my deconversion with only the few words excerpted from my book, and you cannot do that.
I believe I implied several times that I had only your words to go by. What else could I do? Make up words?
>Something to remember in the future: You could say "I'm not sure what he meant here" and leave it at that. Or you could ask questions, like "what could he say that would show that his faith is deep?" But no!
If I failed to give you sufficient benefit of the doubt, I apologize. I thought I had done so, but maybe not. One can always be more charitable, no doubt.
>You assume answers to all of these questions and write against them as if you knew me from what little you wrote.
I don't think I did that either, but people do get different impressions. It's clear that your opinion of me has become increasingly shrill and negative in the last week or so, so this colors your impression and perception, unfortunately.
>I could just as easily denounce you right now for many of the same reasons, since you are an apologist too.
Go ahead.
>You're a joke.
I'm happy and proud to be a fool for Christ.
>I'm surprised you have an audience.
Are they all "jokes" too, because they read a guy who is a joke?
>You're also a psychologist, eh?
Not to my knowledge, though I do have an interest in psychology and minored in it, in college (majoring in sociology).
>Wow! What a presumption. Not even a good psychotherapi
--- continued ---
. . . psychotherapist would prescribe anything without further clarification. Again, you're a joke.
What did I prescribe? Faith in God? Imagine that! An apologist suggesting that faith in God and God's grace might do someone some good. LOL
>*Remember, "if we expose ourselves to skepticism and don't have the equipment to defend our faith we are dead meat." This assumes that I am intellectually challenged, as if a smarter person is all that is needed to do the work of an apologist, and that quite frankly is stupid of you.
It was more of a general statement, as I recall. It has little to do with how "smart" or "stupid" one is.
Rather, all Christians must be equipped to deal with objections or they will be in trouble. I'm writing this paper mostly for the benefit of Christians, so I can help them avoid your sad fate.
>Then you mention the fictitious Job and also Carrie Ten Boom.
I think I wrote "Carrie." It's actually Corrie.
>If John only has more faith he wouldn't have....etc etc. According to you I was not up to the intellectual challenge and deficient of faith.
It's partly intellectual and partly a loss of faith. No Christian can believe apart from God's grace and his own faith. This is what we believe. I'm sorry if it offends you to state it.
>That about explains me away.
It can explain your apostasy, yes. Of course there are hundreds of particulars I don't know about. I'd have to see those to comment.
>Thanks for actually and truly considering what I had to say--not.
You're not welcome for what I didn't do.
>But I do challenge you to read my book.
Send it to me over the computer, so I don't have to type out all your words.
>Until you do this you won't understand
Quite possible, even likely, I would agree. But if your brief deconversion is so woefully inadequate, why put it on your blog at all? Of what good is it if it doesn't explain 1/100th of your journey? Why don't you take it down? It will actually mislead people, if it is so bad and utterly incomplete.
>and you cannot offer a good critique of why I rejected Christianity.
Then take the Reader's Digest version down since no one can understand you without reading your book. I find that strange. I don't require someone to read any of my books before they would have the slightest inkling of the cause of my conversion. They can learn that in about 15 pages. Anyone who has a head on his shoulders should be able to summarize complex reasons into an abridged version. This is the heart of what it means to be a good teacher.
In my upcoming book I had to take major Christian doctrines and distill the defense of them into two pages each. This was very difficult! I think you could do similarly with your deconversion: certainly in 20-30 pages folks could get the main reasons for it.
>But if you get it, read it all the way through before you comment. I dare you.
Here we go with the dares a
--- continued ---
. . . again (John wrote elsewhere that anyone who read his story would eventually lose their faith; his book would be like a slow poison).
I would be happy to read it and reply, provided I get it in html or Word or some computer format, for free. I also would need to see some semblance of open-mindedness and good-natured spirit of dialogue from you before I would even consider spending that much time.
I spent four hours last night. To answer your book with another million objections to Christianity would take possibly an entire week or more (if I were to devote myself to a thorough dismantling of the atheology therein). But if all you intend to do is call me a "joke" and spew a bunch of paranoid nonsense, as here, forget it. My time is too valuable for that sort of silliness.
>Until then don't bother me again.
Does that mean I am banned from your blog? Can I dialogue with other people there who aren't nearly as hyper-sensitive as you?
>I'm through with a backseat psychotherapist who claims to be able to prescribe a solution to what ails me before he truly understands me.
Yet you want me to answer your book on a dare?
>And your confidence is utterly amazing.
It is, isn't it? Praise God for that (Philippians 4:7). It don't come from me, that's for sure.
>How can you really claim to understand the Bible and church pronouncements if you cannot understand what I write?
You know, you have a point. Because I have mistreated you so abominably, I must not understand the faith I have been defending for fifteen years. I should probably resign as an apologist, after this scandalous treatment of you from this "cocksure joke."
>It's the exact same exegetical skills here. They are both documents written by people. Sheesh. You're a joke, and I just don't have the time to teach you what you need to understand.
That's what they thought about St. Paul, too (Acts 17:18,32). They thought Jesus was possessed by devils. It's all par for the course for the Christian who boldly proclaims his faith and opposes atheism and other false belief-systems.
I just think it's very sad that an intelligent person like you can offer nothing but mockery and name-calling when someone gives you a (I think) thoughtful critique of your deconversion. You should welcome the opportunity as a chance to disprove Christianty by disposing of the critique. Instead you take the fool's way out of epithets and irrational dismissal and false attribution of any number of mythical characteristics to your dialectical opponent.
No one is impressed by that. I don't think even your fellow atheists (at least the more rational, less emotional ones) would be all that heartened by this pathetic performance (if not downright embarrassed).
I think you can do a whole lot better than this. A WHOLE lot. You have three Master's degrees, for heaven's sake. If you can't even respond rationally and calmly to a critique of thi
--- continued ---
. . . this nature then all that does is confirm in our minds all the more that the basis of your conversion was not so much rational as it was emotional and non-rational (or that you are so insecure in your atheism that perhaps your conscience is being troubled by criticism of it and you are on your way back to Christianity). You know the old saying: "the drowning man fights the hardest right before he succumbs."
Is that the impression you wanna give? "Come to atheism, for all the wrong reasons or none at all, or just because of sheer emotionalism! If anyone questions my 'reasons' I'll pretend he thinks I am a dishonest, rascally idiot, call him a 'joke' (three times) and dare him to read to read my book so I can ignore his critique and mock him again!"
If atheism is true, my friend, it ain't gonna be because of THIS kind of reaction. Nor will these melodramatic histrionics convince anyone.
It's amazing to me how that people can tell me what I thought or didn't think by reading a few words as if they are a trained psychologist with many hours of talking to me. You aren't, and you didn't. I've responded briefly on my own blog. To think you could pompously proclaim you are better than me is beyond me when you don't know me. It's a defensive mechanism you have with people like me. The only thoughtful response is Randy's above. Others who ask me to explain further are stupid if they think I'm going to waste any more time explaining myself to someone who approaches me cynically. But with Randy I can dialogue with him. He should be writing the books, not you.
Randy, what if your whole community is wrong? There are whole groups of religious people you think are wrong who may argue the same way that you do about their faith. What if the whole community is wrong?
No, Dave, you are not banned from my blog. Engage as you will. Just stop this damned psychobabble, and admit you don't know me enough to say one way or the other. Admit it. Even if you don't, you're not banned from my Blog. But it will speak volumes about your objectivity. Stick to the issues, and there are more issues you didn't read. No freebie book for you either (Are you in the habit of asking for handouts? Then take up a collection). You have shown yourself to be non-objective with me and to parade before the ignorant how smart and how much more faith you have than I did. But stick to the issues. Genesis 1-11 is an issue, but I'm done here. It's in my book. And yes, it's poison, even if you are immune.
Randy, what if your whole community is wrong? There are whole groups of religious people you think are wrong who may argue the same way that you do about their faith. What if the whole community is wrong?
This is certainly possible. In fact, the many contradictions tell us most communities must be wrong about some important truth. The question is are ALL of them wrong and if not all of them are wrong can we reliably find the right one(s)? If God really did reveal Himself through Jesus that truth should not have been lost to the world. It should still be here and it should be reasonably easy to locate.
The big thing about locating this truth that Jesus revealed is we should not assume we already have it. Many people start with the assumption that what they were taught about scripture is largely accurate. I know the Catholic faith is often ruled out because they don't believe in Sola Scriptora or Sola Fide. That is not based on solid biblical reasons but rather an notion that God's answer has to conform to your expectations. You need to be prepared to let God blow your mind with truth you never imagined possible.
Anyway, to make a long story short I ended up landing on the Catholic faith. A few reasons for this:
1. After trying REALLY hard for years I could not find one place where there was an unresolvable conflict between Catholic teaching and the bible. This does not mean there were no doctrines I found distasteful or texts where I liked a differant exegesis better. It was just that there were no show stoppers. No place where I just could not defend the Catholic position.
2. The Catholic church went back in history. No other church could claim to be started by Jesus. No other church could explain the first 1500 years of church history very well. Also, the Catholic church had a good answer to the historical gap between Jesus and availability of the bible.
3. Scripture actually seemed to support the Catholic idea of church better than the protestant idea. The evidence wasn't slam dunk but there was a notion of one visible church with an apostolic office and a petrine office.
Anyway, thanks for the compliment on my response. Don't give up on Dave. He isn't a bad guy. I can see how the concept of a rebuttal to a conversion story has a potential for bad feelings. Conversion stories are very personal. I am not sure how I would react if mine were rebutted.
Alright. Let's go through this tomfoolery again of respnding to John's verbal diarrhea. Obviously the first time had no effect. But repetition is a known learning tool, so there's always hope.
>It's amazing to me how that people can tell me what I thought or didn't think by reading a few words as if they are a trained psychologist with many hours of talking to me.
I did no psychology. I did no attempted mind-reading. It'd be awful nice if you pointed out where you thought I did this. But something I did is obviously extremely threatening to you. A guy as educated as you becoming literally unhinged over a simple Christian response to your deconversion? Something's going on. I have no clue what but I am experienced to identify an extremely irrational reply when I see one. I realize others are personally attacking you at the present time, but it doesn't follow that this was my motivation or intention. It was not at all.
I responded to the words you wrote. Apparently that is a novelty to you. I think it is rather humdrum and ho-hum: one guy responding to another, after being asked to do so.
>You aren't, and you didn't.
That's correct. I'm not a psychologist. I ain't even a theologian. And I didn't do the things you are accusing me of. Nice to agree on something, huh?
>I've responded briefly on my own blog.
Is it an actual reply this time? Shall I get excited? perhaps a reason will be offered rather than emotional hysteria and wild charges utterly unrelated to reality?
>To think you could pompously proclaim you are better than me is beyond me when you don't know me.
Where di I do that, pray tell? For the life of me I don't remember doing so.
>It's a defensive mechanism you have with people like me.
I see. So let me get this straight. You claim I think I am "better" than you, when I don't at all. Then you take the false premise and build a castle of sand atop it: now it is supposedly a defensive mechanism I use. And this after you have been bitching about me supposedly doing inappropriate psychoanalysis of you. That's precious.
This is truly an atheist reply to cherdsh for the ages. It really is. But only, mind you, for its sheer absurdity. It's so ridiculous I wouldn't even dream of regarding it as at all typical of the general atheist apologetic for itself. It'd be an insult to all atheists to take your "reply" as representing the atheist mind when dealing with dumb, judgmental Christians like me.
>The only thoughtful response is Randy's above.
Good for Randy! Kudos. He knows how to reply to you without you going bananas and off your gourd. Apparently that is a rare trait to possess these days.
>Others who ask me to explain further are stupid if they think I'm going to waste any more time explaining myself to someone who approaches me cynically.
Exactly my thoughts about you at the present time.
>But with Randy I can dialogue with him. He should be writi
(cont.)
. . . writing the books, not you.
Great! The more books the merrier.
>Randy, what if your whole community is wrong? There are whole groups of religious people you think are wrong who may argue the same way that you do about their faith. What if the whole community is wrong?
The same applies to atheists, of course.
>No, Dave, you are not banned from my blog. Engage as you will.
How noble of you to graciously extend free speech to a moron like myself. I admire that.
>Just stop this damned psychobabble,
If I ever start it I''ll stop it; you have my word.
>and admit you don't know me enough to say one way or the other. Admit it.
I can't comment on something you write? I didn;t exceed any proper bounds. I simply replied to what was there. There is always some speculation with conversion stories. I don't think they have to necessarily be outrageously presumptuous, as you seem to think.
>Even if you don't, you're not banned from my Blog.
Wow; your magnanimity is quite impressive!
>But it will speak volumes about your objectivity.
No doubt.
>Stick to the issues, and there are more issues you didn't read. No freebie book for you either (Are you in the habit of asking for handouts? Then take up a collection).
No skin off my back. I'd be glad to give you any of my 11 e-books for free. I wouldn't even consider it a handout. I would consider it part of my duty as an apologist.
>You have shown yourself to be non-objective with me and to parade before the ignorant how smart and how much more faith you have than I did.
Really? who are these "ignorant" you refer to? My readers?
>But stick to the issues.
Thought I did!
>Genesis 1-11 is an issue, but I'm done here.
For the fifth time . . . I'll believe it when I see it.
>It's in my book. And yes, it's poison, even if you are immune.
So now I have to be deathly afraid of the book you refuse to send to me in Word of html so I could reply to it point-by-point. I see: the Phantom Book that dashes all variants of Christianity that it encounters through its sheer force of reason. Even better than kryptonite with Superman!
Able to make faulty (but poisonous) inductive leaps with a single groundless premise . . .
For that matter, don't reviewers of books get them for free? Think of all the free advertising on a Catholic site John could get. What a golden opportunity! But are reviewers' copies considered "handouts"?
If I ever see John's book for a quarter at an AAUW book sale, I'll pick it up. But my budget is too limited to buy atheist books: especially from those currently with an axe to grind against me.
Frank [Walton], I don't agree with insults calling people "stupid" on my blog. So I have deleted your post (esp. in light of John's current over-sensitivity for no cause, and your post was certainly a real cause). Thanks for understanding.
Here is John Loftus' "reply" on his blog (10-16-06):
My Deconversion Story--Criticized
Dave Armstrong criticized my deconversion experience here. Please note my comment afterward. Does anyone understand why I don't bother to respond in detail to such drivel? He wants to fault me. So why bother dialoguing with him about it? No matter what I say, I'll be wasting my time. Oh, but I wish rather than fault-finding some Christian would seek to understand. But they cannot try, even though on any other issue of disagreement intelligent people will try. It's called respecting people as people, and Dave's Christianity does not do that with people who don't agree with him.
http://
debunkingchristianity.blo...criticized.html
* * *
And some comments:
At 1:47 PM, October 16, 2006, John W. Loftus said...
I know there are a few Christians who visit here regularly who knew me when I was a Christian. They could easily dispell the false assumptions and distortions Dave writes about. Why? Because they know/knew me. But to do so they would have to reveal their names, since an anynomous poster would be dismissed out of hand. And they have reasons for not doing so. Suffice it to say that I was every bit the Christian that Dave now claims to be, except that I was a much better apologist than he. He can dispute this all he wants to, since he doesn't know me. Fine. I can say no more.
* * *
Matthew Green was kind enough to write:
". . . the tone of Dave's critique is a bit pleasant and not really nasty, . . . At least Dave Armstrong seems a likeable kind of a guy, . . ."
* * *
But alas, John is back, after having stated he could "say no more":
At 3:32 PM, October 16, 2006, John W. Loftus said...
"Matthew, you're right. I'm just tired of pompous asses on the internet who go around claiming they are superior to me in terms of intelligence and faith. Such arrogance makes me vomit. I'm an easy target, because they simply didn't know me. People like Dave would've looked up to me back then, but he has the audacity to go around claiming he is superior to me in both intelligence and with a deeper faith. I seriously doubt that he is, given what I've read from him. I was a much better apologist than he is now. And there probably are people smarter and with a deeper faith than I had too, so that doesn't bother me. It the self-assured arrogant idiots out there, like Dave, who prefer to proclaim off of my personal experience that they are better than I. The fact is they do not know this! I'll say it again. They do not know this!"
So, lessee. First, according to John, I was ignorant (about the whole problem of evil issue). Oh, before that John claimed that I denied that it was even an issue at all (which is grossly untrue). Then he went on to claim that I am particularly "cocksure." Then after my critique it was that I thought I was a better person than he i
(cont.)
. . . is and thought he was dishonest. Now I am a "joke" and he was a much better apologist than I am and had more faith to boot, back in his Christian days (that's obvious, isn't it: he now being an atheist?). I don't respect people as people, or folks who disagree with me. I supposedly think I am smarter than him. Now I am a "pompous ass" and "self-assured arrogant idiot."
Sounds real rational to me . . .
Finally, someone has a lick of sense in the comments and recognizes that the wild charges of "personal attack" are unfounded (though with a strong atheist / agnostic / skeptical bias nonetheless). My replies are in brackets, interspersed:
At 6:03 PM, October 16, 2006, whizler said...
John,
I don’t believe Dave Armstrong’s response was directed at you personally. Why?
It’s my belief that apologetics is aimed not so much at the non-believer, as the believer. The role of the apologist, in my experience, is to provide some kind of response to attacks on the citadel of belief. The content and veracity of the response is of secondary importance to the fact that a response was made
[the last sentence is untrue. If an apologetic is based on falsehood, it is worthless, even if effective. If I didn't believe Christianity was true, I wouldn't devote my life to defending it.]
, because it allows a believer to remain comforted in his/her belief knowing that the charge was answered.
[of course I would say it really was answered, not only pretended to be answered to supposedly comfort the ignorant and deluded]
The average Christian can say, “John Loftus? The ex-Christian? That Dave guy showed John’s de-conversion was simply a matter of incorrect understanding. I need not concern myself with his story.”
[hey; no one is dealing with my actual reasoning except for Daniel Morgan, in part. That is supposed to show us Christians that atheists have a better case?]
As you know, apostates are extremely embarrassing for a faith.
[I don't see how. Every belief-system has people who forsake it for something else. Why should that be embarrassing?]
An attempt—any attempt—to show that some Fatal Flaw in their character was the cause of their apostasy
[I don't regard faulty premises and thinking as necessarily a character flaw: only if it was deliberate, and I didn't claim that John's errors were that]
will be readily grasped at. Apologists are simply fulfilling the demand.
. . . My advice: don’t take it personally. While you may be the putative target, it’s a different audience Dave is speaking to.
[it's true that the apologist's main audience is the Christian, because they are the ones I am trying to equip to have a rational, defensible, plausible, cogent faith. I don't expect to persuade any atheist. If it happens, it's an extra "bonus." My job is to defeat the "defeaters," as Alvin Plantinga would say.]
* * *
If John Loftus must take that personally, when it has nothi
(cont.)
. . . nothing to do with that at all, and must do so in every conceivable universe, so be it. His hyper-sensitivity and ultra-thin skin are beyond my control, and I think at least two people here [i.e., at Debunking Christianity] can see that (for which I thank them).
If we want to talk "personal", just count up all the name-calling, epithets and rank insults John has made towards me. All I've done is basically protest against those and called for calm, rational discussion minus those silly distractions.
It occurred to me that if John Loftus is SO much sharper than I am, and SO much of a better apologist for the faith he later abandoned, then why is it he fundamentally misunderstands the role of the Christian apologist and who it is they primarily write for?
Dave, ever heard of the phrase "Poisoning the wells"?
It's a debate reference used to describe a speaker's attempts to discredit an opponent in the eyes of an audience by making him look bad in some way. This can be done properly and not be a fallacy, but the way you have done it here makes it an ad hominem. You attacked John in a very unethical way.
In almost every remark you make about John, you never once give him the benefit of the doubt. You assume he is immoral, ignorant, and insincere, even though you'd never say that in so many words. You may not mean it this way, but what you are doing is akin to mudslinging, only without the profanity and outright insults.
Focus on the issues. Drop the armchair psychiatrist routine you seem to give everyone who happens to disagree with you. Quit trying to "troubleshoot" everyone's rejection of Christianity when in fact you are just preaching from your doctrinal soapbox.
You, my friend, are doing nothing here but throwing out snobbish hodge-podge and answering questions no one is asking. This is why headway is seldom made in discussions between Christians and atheists. Some just don't want to understand their opponent's position.
Drop the psychoanalytical garbage and the minutia of sporting in-house debates as to which version of Christianity was "the right one" to start out with. This is nothing short of an ad hominem, and as a former minister-turned-atheist myself, I wake up to the same thing in my inbox everyday. Just deal with people where they stand, please!
I am not moved to write articles about how you don't see the truth of atheism by assuming that you were raised under the irrational, controlling, guilt-ridden influence of superstitious South American parents, and a religion whose believers are clueless and deluded enough to think they are seeing Virgin Mary apparitions under Chicago overpasses. I don't feel this way about Catholicism, but by way of example, if I did and I launched such a false attack against your position, you'd see it as a low blow, and you'd be justified. I hope you can take a lesson from this.
(JH)
Here's an amazing display of double standards from John Loftus. Elsewhere he wrote today:
". . . the reason the guys here at Triablogue accuse and ridicule me so much rather than actually engaging me in a reasonable discussion of ideas, like you do, is because they know I have reasonable answers, and that cannot be. So it's much easier for them to rail against me than to ask questions like you do. I could expand on it if you want me to, but it'll be much easier for Triablogue to side track the issue and disrespect me so that I go away in frustration. They love to do this, whereas I'd like to dialogue with Triablogue."
10/16/2006 4:25 PM
http://triablogue.blogspot.com/
2...103751281884944
You all have seen how he has reacted to me, so that it fits exactly if I put myself in his shoes, and he is in the position of the guys at Triablogue:
". . . the reason John Loftus accuses and ridicules me so much rather than actually engaging me in a reasonable discussion of ideas, is because he knows I have reasonable answers, and that cannot be. So it's much easier for him to rail against me than to ask questions. I could expand on it if you want me to, but it'll be much easier for John Loftus to side track the issue and disrespect me so that I go away in frustration. He loves to do this, whereas I'd like to dialogue with John Loftus."
Hi Joe,
What truly baffles me about all this hysterical response is: how do you atheists expect a Christian apologist to respond to a deconversion story? I defend Christianity (I myself happen to be a professional apologist, in fact).
This sort of story starts with the assumption that it gives a rational basis for the rejection of Christianity. Obviously, then, my task is to show how the reasons given fail in their purpose. What do you expect? That I'll say, "well, reasons 4, 12, and 23 are compelling against Christianity. Therefore, I resign my vocation as an apologist immediately and reject Christianity" ?
How ridiculous will this become? OF COURSE I will disagree with the reasons offered, as long as I remain a Chrstian and an apologist. If I didn't, I would be in the wrong line of work. This is some terrible, unspeakable crime, that an apologist is an apologist, and a Christian a Christian (hence reasons like one)?
What is so scandalous and outrageous about an apologist for position x showing how the reasons person y (former adherent of x) gives for rejecting x are groundless or insufficient as a basis for rejecting x?
What did you expect? I gave my reasons as to why I thought they were insufficient. Atheists do this to Christians all the time. Actually, you do a great deal of non-rational stuff, whereas my reply was strictly within the bounds of reasoned analysis.
You subject us to endless mockery, assume that we are ignoramuses, make fun of our worship and most deeply-held beliefs, call us "insane" (I've seen that more than once at DC), cut down the God we believe in, belittle Jesus by saying He didn't even exist, attempt to rip the Bible to shreds, make out that Christian biblical ethics are utterly abominable (John did that this very day at Triablogue), and on and on and on. There is no end to it. And don't try to deny it. Proof is abundant and easily obtained.
Yet if we dare turn the tables and simply disagree with your ideas, then all hell breaks loose. It's Chicken Little. I don't buy it. What's good for the goose is good for the gander. You can't take your own medicine. If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen.
How does it help your case to shamelessly lie about opponents? Whether I am an arrogant SOB or not is for others to judge. I say I am confident. Admittedly it is a fine line sometimes between that and arrogance.
But for John and others to say that I have hatred or think he is an evil person or damned and all this rotgut that I supposedly think, is completely groundless, unethical and uncalled-for.
As I've found in other such conflicts (the bane of the apologist's life - and often sadly coming from fellow Christians), once the irrational anger sets in, then even conciliatory explanations are disregarded and themselves mocked and assumed to be insincere.
I've stated repeatedly that I bear no ill will against John, that it isn't personal, that I don't think
(cont.)
. . . he is an especially "bad" person (since we Christians think all men are fallen sinners). I've tried to explain how Catholics don't judge a person (even an atheist or former Christian) as damned. We don't have the Calvinist view that someone who rejected faith necessarily could never have had it. So I don't have to deny this in John's case.
So am I to be believed or not? Why do you want to make something a rotten ugly thing when it is simply an honest disagreement?
Even "whizler": an atheist on DC, understands that it was not personal at all:
"I don’t believe Dave Armstrong’s response was directed at you personally. Why? It’s my belief that apologetics is aimed not so much at the non-believer, as the believer. The role of the apologist, in my experience, is to provide some kind of response to attacks on the citadel of belief."
He gets it. What is so difficult about this to understand? I wrote about your own deconversion story and you didn't hit the roof and immediately vomit up gallons of personal attacks and knee-jerk reactions against me. You did nothing. How preferable and dignified compared to John's hyper-sensitive, hysterical "reply"!!!
I note once again that John asked me to respond to his deconversion after he saw that I did so with you.
Man, next time I'll think twice before fulfilling an atheist's request to critique some writing of theirs . . . I don't suffer the folly of groundless attack in place of reasonable discussion very well at all. Only my enjoyment of the absurd, ironic humor of it all saves me from lots of potential sins in reacting to this hogwash . . .
I've stumbled across this thread and find it hard to grasp what I read. I'll limit myself to what the original poster says about Genesis.
"John H. Stek, in a book whose purpose is to examine the biblical account of creation from a scientific perspective."
I'm sorry, but in the small quote given from this text, I can see no evidence of "scientific perspective" at all. What this person is claiming is that you have to interpret Genesis correctly. Therein lies the slippery slope - who tells you which passages to interpret, and which ones to take literally. Such writings
smack of intellectual laziness and dishonesty.
Dave,
The main trust of your critique of John's deconversion story seems to be that his reasons are insufficient and not compelling. Can you give me an example of a reason to reject christianity that is compelling? If not, then your argument is disingenuous because you will have the same reaction regardless of the reasons provided.
John’s deconversion, like my own, was a journey of many steps. Examine only the first few steps of that journey, and the journey itself is not likely to be fully understood.
You attempt to deflect John’s criticism of Genesis by stating that it is not meant to be an accurate representation of the birth of the universe. If that is so, then how can one separate the fact from the fiction in the bible? No doubt, you think that god is guiding you in your interpretations. But isn’t that circular? You are counting on god to help you interpret a book that you use as proof that god exists.
You also dismiss John’s complaints of the hypocrisy and lack of support he found in his religious community. This is actually one his most compelling arguments. If christians are imbued with some magical guide that helps them know god’s desires, then wouldn’t we see that christians are far better people than non-christians? Not perfect certainly, but far less sinful than others without the benefit of the holy spirit. And yet, christians appear no more righteous than atheists. In fact, atheists account for less of the prison population as a percentage of their total numbers than proclaimed christians. If you can’t tell the difference between christians and non-christians, then maybe there really isn’t one there at all.
I can understand why John’s deconversion after having an obviously strong faith and understanding of apologetics would be something that you’d like to dismiss out of hand. But it really does happen. Devout christians can come to a different understanding of reality and accept that there is no valid reason to believe in your god.
"Can you give me an example of a reason to reject christianity that is compelling?"
Contemporary historical or archaeological evidence that explicitly contradicts the historical accounts of the New Testament.
"You are counting on god to help you interpret a book that you use as proof that god exists."
No, Catholics do not regard the Bible as any sort of proof that God exists. The existence of God is established by reason, independently of the contents of Holy Scripture. Therefore the fact that Dr. Loftus came to see that his fundamentalist misinterpretation of the Book of Genesis was, after all, a misinterpretation, could not be valid reason to question Christianity or God's existence.
Jordan,
Can you provide an hypothetical example of such evidence? If the story of Jesus is false, how would there be evidence of his non-existence?
Could you provide "contemporary historical or archaeological evidence that explicitly contradicts the historical accounts of the" Iliad? I doubt it. You've created an impossible standard.
I would very much like to see the line of reasoning that gets you to god.
Well if you find the bones of Jesus then Christianity is done. Is that an impossible standard? Maybe, especially since they are in heaven! What about atheism? Is there some better test you have that could falsify your theory?
The creation of the universe did not convince you. The coming to earth of God Himself was unimpressive. The resurection was not enough. You easily dismiss the testimony of millions of people who's lives have been transformed. So what would it take to convince an atheist? I think christians as a rule are much more skeptical.
Randy,
And how does one positively identify that those bones belong to Jesus? The thing is, I don't have to prove that Jesus was mythical, you have to prove that he wasn't.
Atheism is easily disproven. God just has to come down to Earth and do something in violation of the laws of the universe. Should be a piece of cake for someone who created the cosmos.
The creation of the universe is proof of nothing. You read into it that it proves that god exists, but there is no rational basis for this. Man has anthropomorphized nature since the beginning of recorded history. Requiring a being to create the universe is just more of this.
I wasn't here when "god himself" came to earth. How about an encore so I can see it for myself?
And you "easily dismiss the testimony of millions of people who's lives have been transformed" by Allah. What's the difference? If improved lives are evidence for the validity of faith, then all religions must be right.
As I said, god simply has to show himself to convince me. There is precendent for this. He used to show up all the time in the old testament. Strangely, as our understanding of the universe has grown, god shows up less and less. Hmmm...
Christians can be skeptical. However, they rarely turn that skepticism inward on their own beliefs. Astrology is bunk, but two of every species on earth can fit in a big wooden boat. Crystals can't cure illnesses, but a man dead three days can come back from the dead. Islam is wrong for killing apostates, but sending unbelievers to hell for eternity makes perfect sense.
I turned a critical eye on my christian beliefs, and atheism was the result.
"Can you provide an hypothetical example of such evidence?"
As Randy said, finding the mortal remains of Jesus would do the trick. But it needn't be that extreme an example. All we would need would be something like, say, evidence that Pontius Pilate was never in Judaea. Find a historical assertion in the New Testament and see if extrabiblical contemporary historical testimony contradicts it or not. (Note, argumentum ex silencio doesn't count as a positive contradiction.)
"If the story of Jesus is false, how would there be evidence of his non-existence?"
The story of Jesus could be false without Him being non-existent. You don't have to try to prove a negative. All you have to do is find something that flatly contradicts something in the New Testament.
"Could you provide 'contemporary historical or archaeological evidence that explicitly contradicts the historical accounts of the' Iliad? I doubt it. You've created an impossible standard."
Badly analogy. The purported events of the Iliad would have taken place about 1200 B.C., and we have very little if any surviving contemporary historical testimony from that part of the world at that period of time. Not so the first century A.D., the era of the birth and infancy of Christianity.
"I would very much like to see the line of reasoning that gets you to God."
For starters, you can read Aquinas. Once we exclude God from the picture, everything stops making sense -- existence becomes unexplainable and meaningless and futile.
"The thing is, I don't have to prove that Jesus was mythical, you have to prove that he wasn't."
Um, no, since it's a fringe kook opinion to believe that Jesus was mythical, I'm afraid the burden of proof is on you, not on those of us who accept what most respectable, credentialed scholars of history have to say about the existence of Jesus. The ones who make the extraordinary claims have the burden of proof to support their claims. There's nothing extraordinary about accepting the historicity of Jesus. What's extraordinary are the miracles, the divine status, the resurrection, which is why Christian apologists offer arguments to support those things. But it's extraordinary to reject the overwhelming historical evidence for the existence of Jesus. Therefore arguments must be offered to support the nutburger claim that Jesus never existed.
"Atheism is easily disproven. God just has to come down to Earth and do something in violation of the laws of the universe."
He's done that more times than we can count, superlatively in the Incarnation and Resurrection. But if you'd like something a bit more recent, how about the time I suffered severe head injuries in a car crash, on Oct. 17, 1972. That night I was near death, but after prayer and anointing with blessed oil, the next morning the skull fractures were no longer there. There was nothing wrong with me, and no one would have suspected that just 24 hours earli
And how does one positively identify that those bones belong to Jesus? The thing is, I don't have to prove that Jesus was mythical, you have to prove that he wasn't.
Try and prove that Alexander the Great wasn't a mythical. Or Socates. Or even Napolean. Remember you have to PROVE that any and all documents related to him were not forged. No appeal to plausability or probability will be accepted. Only solid proof. Plus I am the sole judge as to whether you proof is sufficient. Now if you fail to meet my standards of proof does that mean these people didn't exist? Is that a good way to arrive at truth.
Anyone who applies accepted historical standards of evidence to Jesus will conclude he existed. To say you doubt even that just means you are either uninformed or unfair.
Atheism is easily disproven. God just has to come down to Earth and do something in violation of the laws of the universe. Should be a piece of cake for someone who created the cosmos.
These are called miracles. They happen. Atheists are not convinced. Look at the Fatima miracle. That violated the laws of the universe. Are you saying one more miracle like that would convince you? If that were really true you would be christian very soon.
The creation of the universe is proof of nothing. You read into it that it proves that god exists, but there is no rational basis for this. Man has anthropomorphized nature since the beginning of recorded history. Requiring a being to create the universe is just more of this.
It proves nothing to you because you standard of proof is impossibly high. Is it irrational to look at the universe in all it's grandeur and beauty and marvel at the creator? I guess I would rather be irrational then. Somehow it is OK to look at a car and know there was an engineer but applying that same thinking to the earth is just silly. And the proof that this is silly? It is because this thinking is old. Any old thinking MUST be wrong thinking. That iis rational?
I wasn't here when "god himself" came to earth. How about an encore so I can see it for myself?
So you can crucify him yourself? You are assuming you would respond with faith and humility if the evidence was strong enough. The point is any evidence can be dismissed if you want to. If you are refusing to involve faith at all then you will never get there. I believe the evidence is strong if you assess it fairly. But you need to be willing to change you life based on what it tells you. If you are not you will always squirm away from the conclusions.
And you "easily dismiss the testimony of millions of people who's lives have been transformed" by Allah. What's the difference? If improved lives are evidence for the validity of faith, then all religions must be right.
I accept that there is some truth in all faiths, even yours. Moslems have wrong theology on some points and it causes problems but they can experience God. You on the other hand must throw out ALL expereince of God because it contradicts your dogma. So many cultures. So many people. So many differant ideas and experiences. Yet so few atheists. It must be because other people are not as smart as you. What else could it be?
As I said, god simply has to show himself to convince me. There is precendent for this. He used to show up all the time in the old testament. Strangely, as our understanding of the universe has grown, god shows up less and less. Hmmm...
All the time? A few times he did. Most OT folks saw nothing supernatural. They just read the same accounts we have of Moses and the prophets. If anything we have more proof now. You look at how followers of Jesus have made such an impact on history. It does make it easier to beleive something supernatural is happening.
Christians can be skeptical. However, they rarely turn that skepticism inward on their own beliefs. Astrology is bunk, but two of every species on earth can fit in a big wooden boat. Crystals can't cure illnesses, but a man dead three days can come back from the dead. Islam is wrong for killing apostates, but sending unbelievers to hell for eternity makes perfect sense.
You don't read man christians if you don't think they turn skepticism inward. It happens all the time and it is healthy. You are assuming here that one should beleive in all supernatural claims or none. That is a false choice. You need to evaluate them based on the evidence. Unless of course you have decided apart from the evidence that supernatural events do not happen. Why not believe Jesus rose from the dead. There were many eye witnesses. They were convincing to those who heard them. They were willing to die rather than admit they made it up. Is it not possible God could have raised Him from the dead? O right, smart people don't think such thoughts.
I turned a critical eye on my christian beliefs, and atheism was the result.
Is it really a critical eye or did you just beleive the buzz that science is smart, forward thinking, and advanced while religion is stupid and backwards? That is the line we keep hearing but there is no reasoning behind it. It is based on faith in science and human intelligence. It is the worship of rational thinking but it is not itself rational. It does not seriously interact with the data. Miracles, religious traditions, and human experience is just wished away. Jesus is avoided at all costs because no explaination seems to fit Him.
Jordan,
I appreciate the response.
Actually I don't need external evidence to contradict the New Testament. The differing accounts of the resurrection and following events do that quite nicely.
So if the Iliad can be discounted because of it's age, then the Old Testament can go with it, right?
Naturalism explains just about everything very well. The rest is just what we haven't yet understood. Those who cannot understand a universe without god are those who NEED god to be in it.
It is certainly possible, even likely, that a man named Jesus lived early in the first millenium. The myth I refer to is his divinity. That is what must be proven by you.
Please provide a reference to the medical journal that documented your miraculous recovery. I'm sure that your doctors would have jumped at the chance show to the world such obvious proof for the existence of the supernatural.
We all have some experience with or have seen great leaders, philophers, and generals. It doesn't take a large leap to accept that Alexander, Socrates, and Napolean existed. Our experience with supernatural beings is a little limited by comparison. That is why much greater skepticism is warranted when it comes to Jesus.
I'll admit it, miracles don't count for me unless I see them. If I said that I had a unicorn in my garage, you'd want to see it for yourself. That is a reasonable request, and you'd be justified in not believing in my unicorn if you never got to see it for yourself.
Your analogy about the creator of a car is flawed. No natural process can produce a car. But we are learning more everyday about the natural processes that account for the existence of the earth and all the life on it.
And your beliefs are not wrong because they are old. They are wrong because there is no evidence to substantiate them. You are unable to see that your anthropomorphizing of nature is just another in a long line of humans trying make sense of their environment.
Faith is belief without evidence or in the face of contradictory evidence. I have no need for that. I am perfectly happy withholding judgement until sufficient evidence is available.
I have no dogma. I believe that science hold the answers because it has consistently done so. It has proven itself time and time again. Religion fails to do this.
And I don't take any position of superiority. You are obviously a very intelligent individual. I don't question your intelligence. I only question your credulity when it comes to beliefs in which you have an emotional stake.
Yes, christians have had an impact on history. So have the followers of all major religions. This is proof that the followers existed, not that their gods do.
I will readily admit that god may exist. I can't prove that he doesn't. But 2000-year-old eyewitness testimony is suspect. People counting the hits and ingoring the misses when it comes to prayer is suspect. A religion that requires faith in order to evaluate
OK, I'm going to wade on in here a little bit. Alas, I seriously lack the time (and a stable internet connection) especially when I am trying to work out to get married to a girl on the other side of the world. So my interaction here (as people will tell you) is occasional at best.
I also think Randy is doing a great job on my behalf as it were!
'Inquisitor' a lot of what you say is similar to the claims of Richard Dawkin's. I suspect you're not as far gone as Dawkins (who is pretty darn extreme!) but in a similar orbit from what you post. You certainly seem to belong to a common school of atheist thought that sees the sum of all knowledge really being science with an extended belief that most religious believers are irrational - they have a psychological need for God and so invent one rather than being followers of (scientific) reason. That's the sense I get from your posts, I may be wrong.
Two things.
The trouble with these kinds of debates is that there is a lot of boiler plate you have to deal with. Richard Dawkin's did a TV program here called "The root of all Evil" in which he basically claimed all religion had been positively, decisively disprove my science for all time and that religious believers were irrational. Long story but I wrote a small book called "What? Religion is rational?" debunking him.
The point is, this book is quite good at dealing with the 'boilerplate' accusations of atheism. It is not intended as an attempt to prove God or even to disprove atheism. It's not a direct piece of apologetics and so is not trying to evangelise. But it does give a response to all the most common (somewhat tired) arguments favoured by atheists such as:
Science has disproven God
Faith is irrationality
Religion = violence
Religious believers are irrational
etc, etc.
I have found that the *few* atheists willing to read it engage in much better discussion afterwards because the questions foremost in their minds have been answered up front! The primary accusations are at least given some answer. this saves both sides having to rehash over the same objections again and again and again. I know, I've been there which is one reason why I wrote the thing. It's available free of charge, it's quite a small book, easily readable (a few typos still) and I can send it via email if you want.
The only other thing I will ad, in line with Randy, is that the proof you seek probably doe snot exist to your satisfaction. Atheists tend to see the world in terms of scientific absolutes (which is one reason they have a very binary approach the book of Genesis - it's either 100% literally true or completely false) and so demand a proof of God in the form of a repeatable laboratory experiment. If it can't be proven in a lab it ain't true. If that's what you want you ain't going to get it.
The reality is that the vast amount of knowledge and 'proof' in the world is not found in a laboratory. Religion, particularly Christianity, is 'proven' in a CULMULATIVE sense drawing on much evidence. None of that evidence is an absolute 'slam dunk' in and of itself. But, like evidence in a court of law, when the weight of evidence, the balance of probabilities is laid, then existence of god becomes highly probable.
What I find is that most hardened atheists operate on a 'filter' basis. They disregard evidence that is not absolutely scientific (and even then.) They ignore evidence that contradicts their preconceptions. So, a person's testimony cuts not ice. A healing? Not true if there is no medical report. Even if the medical report is supplied the atheists tends to ask, "is there a second opinion" and then "Was there a double blind study" and "Was any of the doctors a religious believer?" etc, etc until they can find a 'weakness' in the evidence by which they can disregard it. Evidence for order in the Universe for a creator is VAST - yet atheists will disregard this (operating, frankly, on faith the 'science will see us though.') Historical evidence for the claims of Christ abound, but are disregarded on the grounds of being "too old" which is great laugh!
I had a great example of this with an evangelical friend. I showed him historical evidence that the Early Church held the Eucharist was, in some way really the body of Christ - not just a symbol. At first he rejected the evidence from the later years (AD 200-400) because "the church had been contaminated by paganism at that time." So I took him back to AD70! He rejected the evidence from that period because "The Church was still getting rid of its pagan past." ?????!!!! Heads he won, tails I lost! He had found a way to disregard all evidence that did not fit his prior conceptions! I find, often, the same is true of atheists. They always find a way to disregard the evidence that is available.
So, when it comes to proof, you have to decide what is acceptable proof. the reasoning that leads to belief in a God is similar to evidence in a court case with you as the Jury. It is not like a scientist in a laboratory. No single proof in a court of law will be absolutely 100% compelling or irrefutable (it rarely is that simple.) but the case can be strong demanding a reasonable verdict. Indeed, this is how most human beings make decisions all the time - the balance of probabilities on range of forms of knowledge.
Accept this and you might understand religion. If you demand proof in the form of an experiment in a lab then you will also be 'disappointed.' You won't get absolute proof but you can get a hell of a lot of evidence if you allow yourself.
Honest!
Book available if you want it. I'll be offline for a while. My posting ability is very limited so others will have to take over. Randy, I'm appealing to you!
Thanks
Actually I don't need external evidence to contradict the New Testament. The differing accounts of the resurrection and following events do that quite nicely.
So you don't believe tesimony if 2 witnesses contradict eachother. Talk to lawyers and policemen. They will tell you this happens ALL the time.
Naturalism explains just about everything very well. The rest is just what we haven't yet understood. Those who cannot understand a universe without god are those who NEED god to be in it.
Naturalism explains the 'how'. It does not explain the 'why' and it says nothing about the spiritual realm. Just because the physical world makes physical sense without reference to the spiritual does not prove the spiritual does not exist. All people need God, some are willing to admit it.
It is certainly possible, even likely, that a man named Jesus lived early in the first millenium. The myth I refer to is his divinity. That is what must be proven by you.
Proof? The kind that eliminates all need for faith? If that is what you need you will never get it. There is a lot of evidence that is hard to explain naturally but none that forces everyone to believe. God asks us to choose Him. He leaves the door open for you to say "no". That does not mean he does not exist. Just that he respects your choice.
I'll admit it, miracles don't count for me unless I see them. If I said that I had a unicorn in my garage, you'd want to see it for yourself. That is a reasonable request, and you'd be justified in not believing in my unicorn if you never got to see it for yourself.
I think demanding to see it personally is irrational. I believe Lincon was murdered at Ford Theatre not because I saw it personally but because the accounts are credible. I think it would be irrational to refuse to beleive that because you didn't see it personally.
Your analogy about the creator of a car is flawed. No natural process can produce a car. But we are learning more everyday about the natural processes that account for the existence of the earth and all the life on it.
Learning more every day is not the same as knowing. i would say we understand some of our pre-history but we don't know much at all about our origin. If the Big Bang is true then what caused it? How did the first life forms come out of primordial soup? These answers to these questions and others are very problematic. Even abandoning natural selection for a mutation theory creates a ton of questions. I don't think we are close to a natural explanation of our origin.
Then when you extrapolate the unproven theory into the spiritual realm you are REALLY going beyond the evidence. You look at the human desire for worship, the valuing of artistic beauty, and the beleif in a life after death. When scientists say those thing evolved they are making purely spiritual statement that is based only on their personal faith. The have no physical evidence at all for this.
Labeling a christian as irrational for questioning this is just silly. It is the scientist that has said his faith is based on reason when it is not. Christians understand both faith and reason and can see it is possible to accept much thinking about how species physically came to exist without accepting man is just another animal with no soul.
And your beliefs are not wrong because they are old. They are wrong because there is no evidence to substantiate them. You are unable to see that your anthropomorphizing of nature is just another in a long line of humans trying make sense of their environment.
Lack of evidence does not prove something wrong. If a theory makes sense of my environment is that not in itself evidence it might be right?
Faith is belief without evidence or in the face of contradictory evidence. I have no need for that. I am perfectly happy withholding judgement until sufficient evidence is available.
I don't agree that the contradictory evidence is stronger. Part of the problem is much of the evidence is spiritual in nature.
I have no dogma. I believe that science hold the answers because it has consistently done so. It has proven itself time and time again. Religion fails to do this.
Such a strong statement of faith in science. I say the same thing about my faith in Catholicism. The difference is I don't reject science. I just know it's limits. Has science consistently held the answers about the meaning and purpose of life? About what is morally right or wrong? About what is beautiful? It is very good at finding answers to some kinds of questions and not very good when it comes to other types.
And I don't take any position of superiority. You are obviously a very intelligent individual. I don't question your intelligence. I only question your credulity when it comes to beliefs in which you have an emotional stake.
And I say the same for you.
Yes, christians have had an impact on history. So have the followers of all major religions. This is proof that the followers existed, not that their gods do.
Can you explain how a group of 11 disciples with a disgraced leader in Peter could start a movement that would bring down the Roman Empire? Is there not some evidence of a supernatural power there? Sure you can dismiss it but is it irrational to consider evidence like this?
I will readily admit that god may exist. I can't prove that he doesn't. But 2000-year-old eyewitness testimony is suspect. People counting the hits and ingoring the misses when it comes to prayer is suspect. A religion that requires faith in order to evaluate
It is possible to see God everywhere. It is possible to never see him anywhere. That is a matter of choice and faith. Still there are some things that I believe offer objective evidence for God. Chesterton once said of the Catholic church "the more I tried to be fair to it the more I grew fond of it". I think Jesus is like His church in that way. If you just be fair to Him he begins to look very compelling.
John,
Just read your last two lines in your post, and I must say that you do some great qoute mining.
The Discovery Institute, or at the least Uncommon Descent must be sending you excellent job offers.
"No natural process can produce a car. But we are learning more everyday about the natural processes that account for the existence of the earth and all the life on it."
No natural processes can account for existence, because before anything exists there are no natural processes at all. Positing yet another intermediate cause will not solve the problem of existence, because the need for an uncaused cause remains. Science cannot resolve that problem, because the problem is a philosophical one, and naturalism cannot resolve it either, because the problem is not with how nature functions but where nature came from in the first place.
"Those who cannot understand a universe without god are those who NEED god to be in it."
You have just described every human being who has ever lived or will ever live.
"Faith is belief without evidence or in the face of contradictory evidence."
No, that's not what faith is. Faith involves accepting the testimony of reliable, trustworthy witnesses even in the absence of absolute or mathematical proof. Belief, or unbelief, in the face of contradictory evidence, is not faith -- it's delusion, or ignornace, or pride or stubborness. Unbelief in the face of contradictory evidence is where atheism comes from.
Atheism will forever remain incapable of explaining life, the universe, and everything, because atheism requires the exclusion of the only plausible, possible explanation. Really, to be and remain an atheist you have to decide never to ask the big questions. You have to confine your intellect within narrow walls, and refuse to seek truth no matter where the search takes you. It is fundamentally irrational, a disabling of the intellect and the will, leading inevitably to short-sighted materialism or even nihilism. Atheism is unworthy of so grand a creature as Man.
More "response" from John Loftus:
----------------------------------------
The Value of Conversion/Deconversion Stories
We here at DC tell why we rejected Christianity in both personal deconversion stories, and with our arguments. Regarding our deconversion stories, it's disheartening when Christians on the web tell me I was never saved in the first place, or that deep inside I still believe. The equivalent for the Christian conversion story would be if naysayers argued that such a person never truly converted at all! Think how THAT would frustrate you! I take Christian claims of faith at face value. Why won't all Christians take our claims of unbelief at face value?
Let me comment on Dave Armstrong's recent evaluation of my deconversion story. In the first place, I want to thank him for thinking my story was worth reading and spending 4 hours on. I guess my story was worthy of a look (even if he won't bother to read the whole story until he can get my book for 25 cents at a bargain bookstore)!
When he criticized my deconversion story it was the last straw for my emotions that day. I think I've been treated like this for far too long, and I have been patient at worse attacks on me and my integrity. I think my problem was that I had hoped for better from Dave, that's all, which is a compliment to him that I thought this of him. I guess I will never hope for a better treatment again from any Christian apologist about my deconversion story, even if they read the whole story.
The argument that people convert to Christianity or deconvert away from it for less than justifiable reasons, is the natural reaction for someone who disagrees with that particular story, depending on which side of the fence one changes to. It's what we all do, depending on the particular story. When Anthony Flew claimed he was a Deist, many atheists said he did so for less than adequate reasons, for instance. This is natural. But these stories are also personal ones, so it's hard to see criticisms of them in a non-personal, objective way.
Personal reasons for converting or deconverting are just that, personal reasons. They only explain why someone changed, even if others don't see those stories as having any logical force at all. To the observant, these stories only make a rational case for the change when the person states the reasons for changing, even if no one can comprehensively articulate all of the reasons why he changed. Those reasons are left to be completely fleshed out later, and we do that here on a daily basis.
Carry on then. Let's stick to the issues.
http://
debunkingchristianity.blo...conversion.html
--------------------------------------
I replied:
-----------------------------------
Just to clarify for those whom might incorrectly attribute these attitudes to me (since I am the one mentioned by name in this post):
1. I NEVER claimed, nor do I believe that Joh
(cont.)
. . . John "was never saved in the first place" (allowing for differences in Protestant and Catholic soteriology; I know what he means). I'm not now, and never was a Calvinist. They are the ones who tend to say this.
2. I NEVER claimed, nor do I believe that John, "deep inside" . . . "still believe[s]". I said I thought he had the knowledge of God down deep, but that is different, of course, from being a Christian.
3. I never questioned the sincerity of John's conversion to atheism, or refused to take his claim "at face value."
That said, it remains true that no one here will take a serious look at my critique of his deconversion, save for Daniel Morgan, who did so partially, mixed in with other points he wished to make.
Y'all can moan and groan and complain all you like. Serious thinkers want to see you INTERACT with my critique, which actually INTERACTED with the deconversion story. I understand that such philosophical interaction is hard work, but hey, life is tough. Serious thinking takes work and reflection.
But serious thinking isn't just saying, "yeah, Dave's critique is sheer nonsense," or "we need not concern ourselves with the likes of [Dave]. Fundy to the core." [the previous comment, right above mine]
Nice ad hominem touch there. And of course I'm not a "fundy." I'm a Catholic. I wasn't even a fundamentalist as a Protestant. I was an orthodox evangelical Protestant and am now an orthodox Catholic.
But false labels work real well when one has no argument to bring to bear.
You guys keep calling names (i.e., those of you who do that; not all here). I'll keep making arguments. And I'll be more than happy to return the favor of ignoring the ones who want to simply call names and avoid serious intellectual interaction (except if they write something so outrageous that I must respond).
http://
debunkingchristianity.blo...147292627413429
You wrote There is a reason many Christians lose their faith in college. If we expose ourselves to skepticism and don't have the equipment to defend our faith (and especially if we like to blend in with the crowd and not be different and the "black sheep"), then we're dead meat.
So basically you are implying that Mr. Loftus lost his faith for being exposed to skepticisim before he was equipped to defend it? This makes no sense, as you had previously stated Note and beware, Christians, that even a solid Christian education like this may not necessarily protect one from a slide into apostasy.
So did he have a solid education or a lack of equipment? Some may fall from the faith due to lack of education, but Mr. Loftus certainly isn't one of them!
Commenting by HaloScan
