The New Atheist Crusaders and their quest for the Unholy Grail
Offline Hey all. It's been a while since I've been on. I appologise, I've been busy.
The title of this forum is the title of a book I just finished reading. It's a catchy title, so I figured it'd be a good way to grab someone's attention on here. The book is written by Becky Garrison.
If her name doesn't sound familiar, that's fine, it shouldn't. So why am I wasting your time telling you about this book? Well, I'm glad you asked. This is a book written by a True Christian. HUH? For all of you who have discussed with me in the past, you understand what I'm talking about and for those of you who haven't you can research my blogs. Caposkia is my name.
Anyway, It's written from the viewpoint of how a true Christian feels about of course the atheists in the world today, but more importantly for you, how she feels about Christians in the world.
This is for all of you arguing with me about how Christians have to be black and white. How you have to follow a religion and there's nothing outside of religion etc. She touches on all of this. I truly think you'll enjoy reading this book and I would like to hear from those of you who have read it if anyone. If not, I"ll wait till someone finishes it. It's not a very long book.
When I first came onto this site, I wanted to discuss directly with those who were involved in the infamous television debate that RRS was involved in about the existence of God with Ray Comfort and Kirk Cameron. They didn't have time and the other non-believers I came across were too opinionated to involve themselves in a conversation that made any progress. Instead I got into other debates which for the most part were a lot of fun, but I digress.
Becky mentions this debate as well in her book at the end. This is for all of you on here I've talked to who would not believe me or had other personal issues with the fact that my opinion didn't flow with their idea of a Christian. I will breifly say that I hold her viewpoint when she says that if she was at that debate, she would have "crawled out of that church in shame. "
Simply put, we both agree that both sides put forth deplorable excuses for their side and did not defend their side succesfully. I know I know, many of you will disagree and say that RRS did disprove the existance of God in that debate, but enough with the opinions, I'm saying the other side did just as good of a job proving God. This debate is a poor excuse to not follow Christ and this book talks about those types of Christians.
This book should clarify many misunderstandings of how True Christians are and I hope bring light to a new understanding of our following.
It is written differently than most books, but is an informational peice and uses a lot of researched information. It does focus on the "New Atheists" and is not a book preaching to the masses. As said, it is from the point of view of a True Christian.
enjoy, let me know your thoughts. I would also request, please be respectful in your responses. I'm here to have mature discussions with people.
- Login to post comments
Offline Quote:no, of course you didn't... are you going to use any of them in your defense, other than points like things evolved and were not created? I mean legitimately pull out the meat in each and use it to defend your point of viewNo it does not work that way.
Your "meat" is wishful thinking.
The "meat" of science is based on fact backed up by prior data.
I am not "defending" a "point of view" because it is not a "point of view". It is fact. The earth being a globe is a FACT that was PROVEN through testing and observation. The claim that the earth was flat required no testing and was merely "defended" because people liked the idea and falsely thought it was true.
"Point of view" would be "Chocolate ice cream is better than strawberry ice cream" "Republicans vs Democrats"
FACTS are. Entropy, DNA, mitosis.
And YES we evolved, we were NOT created. Just like a hurricane is not created by an ocean god but evolves because of non cognitive conditions.
...and yet, I'm STILL waiting for you to defend that with "the 'meat' of science"... I would LOVE to have that conversation with you... I don't think you can do it. Wait... I know you can't do it because I've been trying to pull that out of you for years. Come back when you have something to back youself up with.
- Login to post comments
No it does not work that way.
Your "meat" is wishful thinking.
The "meat" of science is based on fact backed up by prior data.
I am not "defending" a "point of view" because it is not a "point of view". It is fact. The earth being a globe is a FACT that was PROVEN through testing and observation. The claim that the earth was flat required no testing and was merely "defended" because people liked the idea and falsely thought it was true.
"Point of view" would be "Chocolate ice cream is better than strawberry ice cream" "Republicans vs Democrats"
FACTS are. Entropy, DNA, mitosis.
And YES we evolved, we were NOT created. Just like a hurricane is not created by an ocean god but evolves because of non cognitive conditions.
"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog
Look, I was a born-again christian for about 18 years. I saw various "new approaches" come and go. Remember the whole "Jabez Prayer" craze or the "name it, claim it" approach?
No matter how you try, you can't escape science!
I appreciate you trying to establish a new understanding by encouraging atheists to read the book, but it just won't work.
The basics remain: There is no god!
It doesn't matter who "won" the debate......go and have a browse in the "talkorigins" website. God is a man-made concept, science is reality.
Cap here has been at it for 4 years, just in this thread. I got ya, and many people here were believers at one point. I really wish Cap would listen to you. But my sad guess is in his head you weren't a "true" trademark, copywrite "believer".
He doesn't want to see that WE are trying to help him out of his delusion. He is fighting it because of all the time he invested would be wasted if he found out he was wrong. What we are saying is yea you may have wasted your time believing, but when you realize it is all bullshit, you feel much better because you don't have to defend a comic book.
I hold out hope for him. Sometimes it takes years. It took me almost a decade to go from believing with certainty to using the word atheist to describe myself.
I hold out hope because something keeps bugging him to the point he keeps coming back. I hope if we have put a crack in his subconscious that the crack grows and he wakes up.
It really is all in his head, I only hope he doesn't waste the rest of his life on a mere superstition.
"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog
That's just the thing: I WAS a true believer. I was born-again, baptized with water and the "holy ghost" and even spoke in tongues!!!
Now I realize what happened: I was influenced by a group of christians and once they suck you in, that's the only world that makes sense to you. I'm not suggesting I was a poor victim, at the time I was just overwhelmed by the kindness and support they offered. To become born-again felt like the right thing to do.
The mistake I made was not bothering to actually distance myself and think about what I was doing.
One of the reasons christians keep at it is that they operate within a closed, monitored system. When you as a christian starts asking questions, you are labeled a doubter or backslider and therefore a sinner who must repent and turn back to god.
You end up where you started: back to being a christian.
I was lucky because when I got angry with something that happened at church, I didn't go and talk about ny anger with my pastor.
I decided to follow my own thoughts and I glad I did!
Lastly, it seems to me that Cap is sometimes caught in the middle of trying to defend his faith and knowing that there is something very wrong with that believe.
The way Cap, and he can correct me if I am wrong, did not come to his theism this way.
My history with him in dealing with his argument which is quite common is "I am not like the others" and I suspect this is the doge he will use to avoid the commonality of what you and he did.
You both got sucked in. He confuses the differences as being important, when the reality you finally faced was "I didn't think about what I was doing".
It would be like a cop pulling you over for a DWI and you argue that you were drunk on beer while another driver says they were drunk on Vodka. Missing the point that you both got drunk and drinking and driving are bad no matter what you got drunk on.
My understanding is that in his past some houses magically survived a fire(selection bias and bad sample rates), then he read the book he posted in the OP and that set his position in concrete.
You finally realized that you were drunk and merely liked what you believed. He hasn't gotten to that point yet. I hope he does.
"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog
You can't conclude that because a naturalistic explanation can't always be found for some anomaly occurring that there is no naturalistic explanation.
That never seems to be an obstacle for you people concluding supernatural explanations.
Hypocrite much?
-Game
-Set
-Match
Why are you deliberately avoiding being logical in drawing your conclusions?
The law of identity states that (a) is not (not a).
According to you a 'miracle' is not 'not a supernatural event' (aka 'a natural event')
By your own standards, a lack of discovering a natural event is not sufficient to conclude that it could not be a 'natural event'.
So, by your own standards, you have no rational justification to insist that 'natural events' cannot be the reasons why statistical anomalies occur, yet you not only insist there are 'miracles', but you build your entire life around these irrational conclusions.
To continually blather about your careful and methodical insistence on 'support' to avoid erroneous conclusions, in light of the fact that you obviously avoid intellectually honest 'due diligence' isn't surprising to me, however, it's your persistent characterizations of yourself as being 'thorough' in your investigations that clearly demonstrates a lack of self awareness.
No.
The 'complaints' are about the fallacies that you use to 'support' your claims. Arguments from authority (The Vatican) are a fallacy. Arguments from personal experience are a fallacy.
Fallacies are neither 'evidence', 'support'. You cannot use these to rationally argue a claim is 'true'.
'Logic' is a bitch like that.
Ahhhh, the shifting of the burden.
Since you cannot defend your claim, attempt to send the 'non believer' on a wild goose chase to 'find' the evidence.
Is this the type of evidence that would win a Nobel Prize and rewrite our understanding of reality? You found it, but can't remember where it is??
Doesn't that make you a pathetic Christian? Isn't it your duty to be always prepared to defend your faith? Isn't that in the bible?
He has. He's pointed out the fallacies you are using.
It's your burden, so if the evidence fails 'due diligence' the answer is 'yes' you would have to defend it or admit you're not being logical.
Yes 'Father', I need more than simple 'testimony' to believe a claim...
Then the question is why you aren't an atheist till there's sufficient evidence to logically conclude there is a supernatural deity?
You don't even need to go further than reading the abstract to see that the process is flawed. It's been shown to you by numerous different individuals, and should be something you as an adult can train yourself to spot.
How many times does the painfully obvious need to be pointed out to you before you accept reality?
A bunch of ignorant long dead authors making claims about things they knew nothing about is not something worth rational consideration or reliance upon as 'factual'. The question is why do you people persist in doing it and thinking that you're on equal footing to debate and argue evidence, rigorous scientific inquiry and the theories derived from them?
Ignorant long dead authors writing about what each other's personal experiences or what they thought about isn't rational argumentation or evidence for or against our modern theories.
Why would you be so adamant that others should seriously consider convincing themselves that these are rational argumentation, as you have?
Because he only developed the theory. That's how science works. You develop a theory, then find either mathematical proofs to confirm it, or evidence that will either support or falsify the theory.
Does it?
So, are you claiming that everything that exists takes up space and has mass?
Actually they do. Do you know anything about the conservation of energy?
Let's be clear that claims made by a bunch of ignorant authors from thousands of years ago are not considered 'evidence' of anything but what they claimed. Using their 'claims' to justify their 'claims' is circular reasoning, completely irrational, and hardly 'scientific'.
Now you've made the positive claim that what is 'alive' to us is 'something' (a) with a physical working body (b).
If you're intellectually honest, you should have arguments for that claim. I know Platinga has one. It has to do with being able to imagine yourself in the body of a beetle being 'sufficient' to prove that (a) and (b) are distinctly separate.
What's your argument?
In your estimation.
I don't hold to circular reasoning.
Maybe you can shed some light on why you and so many others rely on such abysmally low standards to contemplate reality?
I keep asking myself " Are they just playin' stupid, or are they just plain stupid?..."
"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy" : David Brooks
" Only on the subject of God can smart people still imagine that they reap the fruits of human intelligence even as they plow them under." : Sam Harris
Good post, Rednef.
IMO, these low standards they rely on is caused by a fatal flaw which is a believe in a unseen, spiritual entity who's "rules" is provided in the bible, which is never questioned.
They usually never bother in actually investigating the unbiased evidence science provides.
We know that science don't have all the answers and christians use this as an argument. They don't realize that what is known can't be refuted by them.
It's hard to argue with an unseen spiritual entity!
While exercising a ludicrous double standard in 'lack of evidence'.
It's their signature...
I keep asking myself " Are they just playin' stupid, or are they just plain stupid?..."
"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy" : David Brooks
" Only on the subject of God can smart people still imagine that they reap the fruits of human intelligence even as they plow them under." : Sam Harris
Imaginations are the only thing that are "all powerful". Not in a real sense, but in the mental ability to make shit up and swallow it blindly.
Naked assertions don't require scrutiny. They can only be propped up by willful ignorance and credulity.
He keeps saying I don't have evidence that there isnt a god.
YES I DO,
The human brain exists. It has a structure. It is made of material. If that structure is damaged to the point where it fails, it is no longer capable of thought.
So to suggest that thoughts can occur without a physical process is FUCKING ABSURD.
It would be like claiming a hurricane can occur without a planet or atmosphere.
He doesn't want to accept that he is merely falling for his own wishful thinking and allowing his sense of awe to falsely do what the moth does in mistaking the light bulb for moonlight(Dawkins moth in the God Delusion)
He doesn't want to accept that he is not doing anything any differently than any other human in history that has made up gods in their image. It is mere anthropomorphism. He thinks that by proxy of popularity and tradition and the pretty stories in the babble make his super hero real.
It wasn't true when people thought the sun was a god. It wasn't true when people thought that Possiden controled the ocean. It wasn't true when humans thought vocanos could think like humans and got angrey at the humans. It wasn't true when Jews claimed Yahweh as the one true god, and his pet invisible non material super brain with magical super powers is no different.
You could argue about what "The Force" is. You could argue about what broom brand is best for Harry Potter to fly on, and it would still be bullshit.
He keeps coming back because he has nothing and doesn't want to face it. If he had something he could take it to the patent office and win a Nobel Prize. If he were being honest with himself he'd merely accept it as the fiction it really is. I hope someday he does. He'll feel lots better once he realizes he doesn't have to defend fiction.
"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog
I do and though I've said it before, I'll say it again... that's not what I'm expecting of you. I have simply given you an entity that claims to confirm miracles and I've asked you to show me how their method of confirming miracles of God is flawed. I did not ask you to accept their method or the fact that miracles definitely do come from God, I didn't even ask you to accept the existence of God, only tear apart the methodology of an entity claiming the existence of God and His interaction in the world.
You on the other hand have only defended yourself by coming up with excuses as noted above. Excuses that are very obviously not true not only because I've repeatedly told you otherwise, but because I have shown that in my presentation. I'm not Brain sitting here telling you that you're delusional because you won't accept my understanding of reality.
You I am messing with a little bit now because you're getting a bit short sighted in your responses... I say this because I know you're capable of more. I just want you to start being honest again, stop looking for excuses, just be honest and rational.
I mentioned your "dead guy answering prayers" thing because you presented it as if it was reasoning to believe the complete process to be flawed. I clarified that though they may have their wires crossed, they're still thorough.
Beyond that, sure, there could be bias in the Consulta, but my answer to "no they don't" also included the little piece written about how they use outside sources e.g. doctors and scientists that are not selected by the church. Why do you feel you have to leave out those pieces of information? Are you trying to figure this out or are you only trying to prove your understanding? It seems to me the latter. If so, then again, just be honest, you and I both know this is going nowhere if that's the case.
I'm telling you they don't and the research supports it. Let's put it this way, sure it's easy to fake miracles... its' also easy to fake a scientific discovery. The catch is, when confronted on your findings, you must back yourself up... this applies to the church as well, soooooo.... though it's easy to fake, it brings no further ground to your case. therefore:
Me: no they don't
YOu: but they could
Me: But they don't
You: there's no proof
Me: so investigate and show me, the evidence is out there.
You: it's not my burden
...and so it has been for 100's of years. Will they ever stop? only time will tell.
The problem is, I know you have a brain and the worst part is you know how to use it.. you seem to be accusing me of not using mine, but I have been. I'm smart enough to know that I shouldn't waste my time explaining something to you when you're in the state of mind your in because instead of coming back with grounded information, you're aloft with hypotheticals and opinions that never bring progress to such a conversation as these.
Let's put it this way... I know you have told me the most reasonable excuse for not accepting the existence of God, which is "I have yet to see any reasoning to believe..." therefore, would a hypothetical like "God could be real" or an opinion like; "my life is the way it is because of God" convince you to consider God further? if your answer is "No" then why would you expect the same approach to work on me?