While I spent an entire Sunday afternoon carefully replying to John's thoughts at his request, he was composing a potshot and poisoning the well yet again:
========================
I don't care if you give us another shot. You were personally rude. You have all the answers. The rest of us are just dumb.
Or you can help Scot out who earlier asked you to answer me.
You could just wait to see my book, "Why I Became an Atheist" due out from Prometheus Books at the end of Februrary. No freebies, like you had asked for earlier.
While my focus is on evangelical Christianity, your view won't escape criticism either.
Cheers.
http://www.haloscan.com/comments...0599964/
#152259
What a shame. And I thought it could have been a good discussion too. So many times with (usually angry, irrationally emotional) atheists, it is over before it even begins. He asked for a reply, I gave it, and before he even waited to see if I would reply or what I would say, he has insulted me as a pompous know-it-all.
He still talks about my reluctance to refute his book without a free copy provided.
For my part, however, John is welcome to a free e-book copy of my book on skepticism and atheism (Christian Worldview vs. Postmodernism), for the asking.
It ain't about money; it's about truth.
this "test" amounts merely to a sociological gloss on two very tired arguments, combined with one outrageous demand. the arguments:
1. "if Christianity is so clearly true, why doesn't everyone believe it?"
(the real meaning of the 'challenge of other religions')
2. "if Christ redeems and sanctifies, why are Christians so average?"
(the real meaning of the 'challenge of cultural faith')
and the demand:
"if this is the ultimate truth about God, prove it to be beyond any possible doubts such that no one could reject it."
(what's really being demanded by the 'outsider test')
now, the first two are tired and weak arguments-- not because we tire of hearing them, but because they do nothing but distract the atheist from the question of truth. if the thing really happened, decent unbelievers and wicked believers do not cancel it out.
and the third is a ridiculous demand. who am i to put God in the dock and demand that He give me evidence that would literally overwhelm my will?
besides, God will not force us to choose Him. and "proof beyond doubt," thought it might make john loftus happy by satisfying the 'outsider test', would amount to just this.
but what do i know? i'm only a convert from atheism with no Catholic relatives...
And since the subject of manners has been brought up, I should mention that is good manners to assume that the person one disagrees with (be he Christian, atheist, whatever) arrived at his worldview through serious reflection and study. The you-just-believe-that-because-you-were-spoon-fed-
it is bad form at best. And, as Dave pointed out, it's an argument that cuts both ways. Less talking around a person's view, and more interacting directly with it.
I have answered your objections clearly and decisively in my book, which is being recommended by some interesting and important people. You seem to only be aware of my older book which is no longer available. Get my present book. Or better yet, pre-order the Prometheus Books edition.
I'm not interested in giving out a free book to you, because I do not believe you will give it a fair hearing, and I certainly don't think it will change your mind even if what I wrote is the truth, which I think it is. It's a non-sequitur to argue that I won't give you a freebie because I am interested in your money. I am not interested in your money, but I won't buy my book (which is what I'd have to do), and give it to you. Maybe you can contact Prometheus Books and maybe you can have them send you a free copy for review. That'd be fine with me.
This post of mine is a good summation of what I'm arguing for. How exactly is it that what you just wrote refutes it?
Hello Dave,
Glad to read that you are involved in this debate, which, is more worthy of your talents than the James White dialogue. Though I do have to wonder if there is really any value in debating atheists.
Regards,
I see the start of an interesting phenomenological argument to be made out of John's assertions:
1. The vast majority of people are reasonable.
(This is practically a tautology)
1a. The vast majority of people believe in reasonable things. (This doesn't directly follow from 1, but the link is a conceptually small step.)
2. The majority of people believe in the religion of the predominating culture where they were born. (As asserted by Mr. Loftus)
3. Therefore, the majority of religions that predominate in world cultures are reasonable.
While not an argument against atheism, it's at least an argument that faith is reasonable.
I should note that more people believe in Christianity than in any other single religion. Doesn't that make Christianity the most reasonable religion to believe in?
(Not completely tongue in cheek. 8-) )
I like it! We can play sociology just like the atheists do. LOL
I wish folks would quit explaining that most people believe in the religion or worldview they were raised in. Doesn't everyone know that already? And shouldn't everyone know that it does not therefore follow that a belief is false simply because you were raised in it? I'm not saying that's the only reason his Christian beliefs were dismissed (I haven't read his deconversion story, so I don't know), but it is an annoyingly prominent red herring based on what's been posted here.
I wish folks would just stick with critiquing things on their own merits.
...it does not therefore follow that a belief is false simply because you were raised in it?
Of course not, that would be the genetic fallacy. I never said it does, but it should caution people who argue for what they were raised in. I say most Christians became that way because they were raised in a Christian culture.
Dave, have you seen this? You really ought to take a good look at my book. People are being led astray from reading it, ya know. And you could set them straight. The longer you wait.....well, you know.
I made a lengthy critique of exactly what you wanted me to critique, and it wasn't your deconversion. Ball's in your court. Why should I move on to something else when that wasn't yet responded to?
That's fine.
I respond to your objections in my book, and it would take too lengthy of the comment space here to deal with what you wrote. If you don't understand that, then fine. Cheers.
Great. Next time you challenge me to respond to something you write, I'll understand that you have no intention of counter-responding, and will take that into account as I decide what is worthwhile to spend my time on.
You act as if you've written nothing except your blasted book. You write tons on your blog, yet you act as if none of that ought to be critiqued or examined. We're all supposed to accept it as Gospel Truth, and if we don't, we get sent to your book because you are unwilling to give any answer to us mere mortals and can only preach to the choir on your blog.
That is intellectually unimpressive in the extreme . .. .
I gave it my best shot with a serious extended reply to exactly what you asked me to reply to. But you had ridiculously insulted me before I even completed my reply. And now this is how you respond.
One either wants to engage in true dialogue with competing ideas or they don't. You clearly do not, and only want to preach (which makes sense, being a former pastor; you just changed congregations).
Commenting by HaloScan
