Comments on: Sometimes they make it too easy http://atheists.org/blog/2006/07/28/sometimes_they_make_it_too_easy A Blog of Atheist Thought Fri, 10 Feb 2012 05:40:03 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: tgleeson@eoni.com http://atheists.org/blog/2006/07/28/sometimes_they_make_it_too_easy/comment-page-1#comment-41866 tgleeson@eoni.com Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000 #comment-41866 The two most difficult arguments in defense of Christianity are:<br /> <br /> 1. The problem of evil<br /> <br /> 2. Christians The two most difficult arguments in defense of Christianity are:

1. The problem of evil

2. Christians

]]> By: tgleeson@eoni.com http://atheists.org/blog/2006/07/28/sometimes_they_make_it_too_easy/comment-page-1#comment-41868 tgleeson@eoni.com Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000 #comment-41868 or let me put it this way. Two of the most effective arguments against Christianity are:<br /> <br /> 1. The problem of evil<br /> <br /> 2. The behavior of Christians or let me put it this way. Two of the most effective arguments against Christianity are:

1. The problem of evil

2. The behavior of Christians

]]> By: reluctantatheist http://atheists.org/blog/2006/07/28/sometimes_they_make_it_too_easy/comment-page-1#comment-41869 reluctantatheist Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000 #comment-41869 Tim:<br /> Well, honestly, #1 wasn't a deal-breaker. #2 was a wake-up call. #3, if I may tack 1 on, is the problem of a distinct lack of evidence. #4 was the bible itself: it contradicts itself in so many ways, on so many levels, it boggles the mind. #5 is the clear lack of insight into human nature the bloody thing has. #6 was the 'filler': all the pap the apologists use to explain away 'mysteries', such as the non-existence of said characters in the book outside of the book. #7 is the clearly non-scientific mistakes it contains. #8 is slavery, #9 is the mistreatment of women, #10 is the alleged orders of the wacked out deity in re: genocide (yeah, kinda goes to #1). <br /> <br /> Hmmmm...thought the list would be longer. Oh well. Tim:
Well, honestly, #1 wasn’t a deal-breaker. #2 was a wake-up call. #3, if I may tack 1 on, is the problem of a distinct lack of evidence. #4 was the bible itself: it contradicts itself in so many ways, on so many levels, it boggles the mind. #5 is the clear lack of insight into human nature the bloody thing has. #6 was the ‘filler’: all the pap the apologists use to explain away ‘mysteries’, such as the non-existence of said characters in the book outside of the book. #7 is the clearly non-scientific mistakes it contains. #8 is slavery, #9 is the mistreatment of women, #10 is the alleged orders of the wacked out deity in re: genocide (yeah, kinda goes to #1).

Hmmmm…thought the list would be longer. Oh well.

]]> By: mryder66 http://atheists.org/blog/2006/07/28/sometimes_they_make_it_too_easy/comment-page-1#comment-41870 mryder66 Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000 #comment-41870 Tim,<br /> <br /> Neither of those arguments are especially troubling in my view. That's not to say they can easily be convincingly explained.<br /> <br /> Were I to choose a couple, I'd first generalize xianity to theism and ask:<br /> <br /> 1. The paradoxical reasonableness of the supernatural interacting with the natural and yet somehow remaining supernatural.<br /> <br /> 2. The abysmal track record of supernatural explanations for phenomena that have subsequently been explained as natural phenomena. Tim,

Neither of those arguments are especially troubling in my view. That’s not to say they can easily be convincingly explained.

Were I to choose a couple, I’d first generalize xianity to theism and ask:

1. The paradoxical reasonableness of the supernatural interacting with the natural and yet somehow remaining supernatural.

2. The abysmal track record of supernatural explanations for phenomena that have subsequently been explained as natural phenomena.

]]> By: tgleeson@eoni.com http://atheists.org/blog/2006/07/28/sometimes_they_make_it_too_easy/comment-page-1#comment-41872 tgleeson@eoni.com Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000 #comment-41872 All good points. The list is huge indeed. My point number two about the behavior of Christians has truth (although it was supposed to be somewhat "tongue in cheek"), but is really not a reasonable refutation of Christianity. However, if all the points listed could be approached with reason and evidence, and let's say it turns out to be 60:40 in some areas, and 50:50 in others, and 70:30 in others; all in good defense a Christianity, would there be any takers? or does "psychological" bias on either side trump "rational" bias?<br /> <br /> HeatheNZ: For example, one could start the discussion in the area of supernatural with the question, does anything other than physical existence exist? (Physical existence meaning that everything can be explained by matter and energy)<br /> <br /> A comprehensive apologetic discussion is beyond me and perhaps the circumstances here, but it might be nice if one could discuss the existence of nonphysicals instead of the terminology, natural vs. supernatural.<br /> <br /> Actually, I get bored with myself when getting too involved in such lengthy apologetics, even though it has been my passion for over twenty years. Parts of it are more reasonable than others. I've taught a number of classes on the subject, but find it more satisfying to ask questions of others, and find out what, why and how they think.<br /> All good points. The list is huge indeed. My point number two about the behavior of Christians has truth (although it was supposed to be somewhat “tongue in cheek”), but is really not a reasonable refutation of Christianity. However, if all the points listed could be approached with reason and evidence, and let’s say it turns out to be 60:40 in some areas, and 50:50 in others, and 70:30 in others; all in good defense a Christianity, would there be any takers? or does “psychological” bias on either side trump “rational” bias?

HeatheNZ: For example, one could start the discussion in the area of supernatural with the question, does anything other than physical existence exist? (Physical existence meaning that everything can be explained by matter and energy)

A comprehensive apologetic discussion is beyond me and perhaps the circumstances here, but it might be nice if one could discuss the existence of nonphysicals instead of the terminology, natural vs. supernatural.

Actually, I get bored with myself when getting too involved in such lengthy apologetics, even though it has been my passion for over twenty years. Parts of it are more reasonable than others. I’ve taught a number of classes on the subject, but find it more satisfying to ask questions of others, and find out what, why and how they think.

]]>