You guys are pathetic and sad.

I couldn't agree more. People who believe irrational creation myths are pathetic and sad.

I actually looked up religion in the dictionary, and it is “an institutionalized or personal system of beliefs and practices relating to the divine”. But here is what got me very intrigued; the definition does not stop with the divine, but it actually goes on to say that religion is a “set of strongly-held beliefs, values, and attitudes that somebody lives by”. (Encarta Dictionary) What intrigued me regarding that definition is the fact that atheists many times seem to distance themselves from any association of faith or beliefs. Although they may not believe in a deity, nevertheless they certainly live by atheistic convictions, which state “that there is no God”… and this just happens to be a “set of strongly-held beliefs, values, and attitudes that somebody lives by”. It turns out that atheism is actually a religion that simply holds the belief that there is no God. While one religion says there is a God, the other says that there is no God… and they are both religious because it takes faith to hold to the teaching and virtues of any of the two.

Did you think of that all by yourself? Isn't that precious! Intrigued! You!

Wrong.

Do you believe in the Hindu god Ganesh?

If not, are you a member of the "No Ganesh" religion?

If you are going to use “set of strongly-held beliefs, values, and attitudes that somebody lives by” the way you did

then does that mean there is a Republican religion? A communist religion? A liberal religion, etc.?

I think you may have left some things out of the definition.

I cannot find any definition of religion which does not mention one or all of the following:

Belief in God, supernatural powers, devotional/ritual observances, moral codes.

Anyway...to quote Adrian Barnett (an atheist)....

"In many cases, atheists will say "That God does not exist", not because they choose to do so, but because, from the description of the God, it cannot exist due to contradictory attributes. In the same way that a square circle cannot (and therefore does not) exist, a God defined as (for example) all-knowing, yet cannot see into the future, cannot and does not exist because the definition is self-contradictory. If you describe your God with self-contradicting attributes which make it logically impossible, then I may safely say that such a thing does not exist as described. This is not faith - this is reason. "

The definition of religion says that it is a system of beliefs. But what are that beliefs? Things that are not demonstrable. Things that you're accepting without any proof.

Atheism needs proofs for its own ideas. For this, it's not a religion.

I WAS ALWAYS A VERY SKEPTICAL CHRISTIAN GROWING UP, CONVERTED TO ATHEISM JUST ABOUT 5 YEARS AGO. IT'S AMAZING THAT SO MANY PEOPLE CLING TO SUCH A CRAZY CONCEPT OUT OF FEAR, AND IGNORANCE. I RECOMEND EVERY CHRISTIAN, JEW ETC. READ A SCIENCE BOOK, WATCH THE RATIONAL RESPONDERS, CHECK OUT VIDEOS ON YOUTUBE.COM POSTED BY A MAN WITH THE SCREENNAME: THUNDERF00T (HE HAS GREAT VIDEOS, WITH STAGGERING KNOWLEGE ON MANY SUBJECTS, VERY WELL INFORMED), AND I DARE YOU ALL TO UNSHACKLE YOURSELVES FROM THE FEAR AND GUILT INSTILLED IN YOU BY AMERICAN CULTURE'S CHRISTIANITY OR ANY OTHER RELIGEON, AND LIVE LIFE! APPRECIATE LIFE FOR WHAT IT IS, AND YOUR CHANCE TO HAVE BEEN PART OF THIS AMAZING EXISTANCE. WITHOUT THE MYTHOLOGY OF SOME DEITY, OR IDEA OF CREATIONISM, YOU HAVE THE ABILITY TO COME TO A REAL MOMENT OF CLARITY. WE ARE APES. I'M PROUD TO BE AN APE, AND PROUD TO HAVE HAD THE CHANCE TO BE A MEMBER OF A SPECIES THAT WAS ABLE TO FLOURISH ON THIS WONDERFUL PLANET.

I'M JUST AN AVERAGE GUY WHO READS. SO HERE I WOULD LIKE TO SUGGEST SOME MATERIAL:

THE THIRD CHIMPANZEE, BY: JARED DIAMOND

A BRIEF HISTORY OF TIME, BY: STEPHEN HAWKING

THE DESCENT OF MAN, BY: CHARLES DARWIN

GUNS, GERMS AND STEEL, BY: JARED DIAMOND

AND I ALSO LOOK FORWARD TO READING "THE GOD DELUSION" BY: RICHARD DAWKINS, BUT I'M IN NO NEED OF CONVINCING. I STRONGLY RECOMEND THUNDERF00T ON YOUTUBE.COM, WITH HIS SERIES :WHY DO PEOPLE LAUGH AT CREATIONISTS?" PT. 1-28. VERY NICE. ITS ALWAYS GOOD TO KNOW THERE ARE A HANDFUL OF GOOD PEOPLE OUT THERE THAT THINK ON A HIGHER PLANE THAN THE IGNORANT MAJORITY

I don't have slick words or slick rationalizations.  Really, I'm not a very smart at all.  Seems to me though the best one can say when all arguments have been heard is, there is a good, and there is an evil, or there is nothing, which side am I on?  In my opinion, we all will choose which side we are  on.  The logic I've read from the religious and the non-religious cannot bring me to the point where I cannot conclude this choice, our side, isn't made daily and acted on daily.  We defer on our choices, conclusions, and perceptions relating to these, but we still choose.  We get our motors running with a certain conclusion, oftentimes turn our lives on auto pilot, and get frustrated when something crowds our little box.

Bundling people into three types, in relation to the grand scheme, they believe in the good, they believe in the evil, or they believe in the nothing, is of course not fair.  Lumping people into types and groups is simply like the difference between looking at satellite pictures on google maps online and then google earth with its 3D effect.  Its not entirely fair to say google earth will yield the more correct result; the eye is in the beholder.  Different data inputs might yield more precise descriptions in this instance, but do not necessarily yield the truth our existence. 

My point here is the baloney arguments on many sites and by many people pro and con in relation to the truth of our existence  do not tackle the ultimate point;  that if I conclude other peoples existence is acceptable, then "liberty for all" is necessary for harmony regardless of what another person believes.  We all decide for ourselves, accept the consequences of our choices, and ultimately die alone, as individuals.

And when I try to fit a square peg into a round hole, is this reason, or is it not using common sense?  Belief, even if said to be the opinion of fact, is an absolute facet of reason in real life.  Yes, extracted from daily life, the above statement is reason.  We err when we follow the rabbit hole of bringing our rationalizations out of the reality of life, not to inflect, to have as a mantra.

Why do atheists want so much discussion about God ?

How can you have so much  discussion on something you claim doesnt exist?

And why be actively pursuant in trying to dissuade those who by their own choice or

free will have come to the conclusion by whatever means that there is a God .

If you dont want to believe it is your choice, you are entitled to it and anyway

when you die that is when we all know what the real truth is......

Because millions of religious sheep are determined to impose their ridiculous superstitions on the rest of us. Also, the discussion concerns the belief in 'God', which atheists lack belief in. The theists are the ones claiming 'God' exists, it's up to them to present evidence for and coherently define this 'God'.

Are you serious? Discourse about the world and beliefs about it is how progress is made, how understanding increases. Why should belief in 'God' be excluded from this? The "whatever means" is also very peculiar. Are you seriously suggesting that all means are equal? That a whim based on magical/wishful thinking is on equal terms with rigorous scientific inquiry? If so, I must inform you that if everyone held to such an idea, the computer you typed on wouldn't have been invented. Neither would written language.

Why, thank you for granting us the right to believe what we want, something that goes against the 1st commandment of YHWH (a particularly nasty tribal deity). We also firmly stand behind your right to not only believe what you want, but also to express it. With that right also comes our right to express our opinion that your beliefs are irrational and devoid of insight into the real world. This is demonstrated by the fact that you seem to think that when you die, when your brain which is responsible for all your thoughts and interpretation of your surroundings stops working, then you magically will "know" what "real truth" is. Thank you for so eloquently demonstrating magical thinking. Have fun in la-la land. I prefer knowledge to false hope based on ancient texts compiled by middle eastern bronze age goat hearders with an unhealthy fascination with the female birth canal and human sacrifice.

Regardless of whether we believe in God or not, the fact that the majority of the world does believe in God and, more importantly, tailors their actions to these beliefs, makes the issue extremely important. Do you support evolution? If you don't, why do you argue against it (hypothetically)? Do you follow Islam? If you don't, why do you argue against it? Because our beliefs do not reside in a void; they determine what we do.

The same reasons as above.

Believing that we should stone women whom accidentally show their ankles in public is obviously not the end of the philosophical train; it leads to actively condoning such actions, and eventually, perhaps, even carrying out the divine punishments ourselves. Naturally, another question would be, if your neighbor believes that it's righteous to stone women for showing their face, would you care? What about when they start stoning women in the middle of the street? Would you care then?...or would you just ignore them based on the idea that you shouldn't harass other people's beliefs.

That's correct. You have two choices. You can either actively pursue the truth or you can commit the ultimate intellectual cop-out. You seem to prefer the latter.

Of course, if you happen to be wrong, then you've wasted your entire life. But, that doesn't scare you nearly as much as the unjustifiable, unexplainable horror of actually challenging your belief system. 

do u really BELIEVE that.

or does the fact that there is a creator conflict with your current lifestyle, wich allows no space for HIM.

quote" Do you know everyyhing?Do u know half of everthing?  Is it possable that GOD exists in the half u dont know about?"

Since that was the most pathetic attempt I've seen all day, I'll do no more than reverse the questions right back at you.

Does the fact that there is no creator conflict with your current lifestyle, which allows space for invisible friends and magic?

Do you know everything? Do you know half of everything? Do you know a millionth of everything? Is it possible that the lack of god in what you do know is reflected in that which you do not?

I really like the honesty you have. But think of this for just a moment...Ok so say that you are right, there is no God, and I'm wrong because I do believe in God. What Have I lost? Nothing. I have lived a wonderful complete life, full of love and freedom in Christ. I have seen the way that people live when they don't have Christ in their lives; The pointless wondering and meaninglessness. I couldn't be more happy with my life! It leaves me in awesome wonder the God of the whole world loves me and wants to know me! But what if you are wrong, and there is a God? What will your answer to him be when he asks you on judgement day, "How could you turn away such a great gift  of love to you which cost me my life?" If I'm wrong I loose nothing-I lived a happy and full life. If you are wrong you will spend forever in Hell. I would make sure you are right. I'm praying for you. Really think about it!

Esther,

Doesn't it bother you that your best "argument" (and I use that very loosely here) is that if we don't believe your fairy tales, then we go to a place of eternal torment? I am serious. Have you ever really thought about it? Is that why you believe? If so, you're believing because if you don't, it will really really hurt forever. That's not free will, that is called coercion of the most extreme kind. Is that an acceptable reason for you to believe? If not, why should we?

This tired old crap is called Pascal's wager. Not only was it refuted instantly, it's not even about the existence of your 'God'. It's a fool's betting game on completely false premises. There are plenty of material on this site on this particular fallacy. You should read it, educate yourself.

I'll be thinking for you.

How sad that you're wasting your life believing in nothing, when you could actually be accomplishing something, like helping people. You'd better hope your god doesn't exist. He'll look worse on you than on us. Of course, if your god doesn't exist, and someone elses does, then you're even more fucked. False idols and such. We have none.

Pascals wager gets dumber every time I see it.

To be atheist is to believe that something can come from nothing, and that life can be derived from non-life.

Christianity

The belief that some Jewish Zombie can make you live forever if you symbolically eat his flesh and telepathically tell him that you accept him as your master, so he can remove an evil source from your soul that is present in humanity because a rib-woman was convinced by a talking snake to eat from a magical tree.
 

QFT.

You should join the site!

Creationism will die out just like Greek mythology did, because Creationism is quite obviously false in every way, you'd have to be uneducated to believe it. I'm not neccisarily saying all the theories out there are true either, for all we know there may be an alternate truth beside evolution. But what I can say for sure is that Creationism is an obvious fairy tale.

Me too!

I read all the comments about the various opinions about faith.  Grossly missing was any mention of the historical Jesus.  For those who claim to be non- believers all you need to do is search history's past and see if you can deny His lordship and teaching.  If you can deny Him after His life giving sacrifice then you truly do deserve  the judgment you shall receive. I pray the Holy Spirit will open your eyes before it is too late.

Jesus lived and walked on this earth He created and His existence is recorded fact. Secular history as well as biblical declarations both stand as confirmation for all who will seek to genuinely know the truth.

Again, I hope you find it before it's too late.

There's no real proof that your jesus isn't just a carbon-copy of a dozen "saviours" from earlier cults. If you followed your own advice you'd already know this.

It's not just a choice.  Religion factors in almost every aspect of modern life, from lawmaking to school funding-- and regularly infringes on the health, education and safety of others.  And one could make a very, very strong argument that in the coming century, the poisonous mixture of cheap technology and fairy-tale beliefs may very well be ingredients for our undoing.

Religious liberalism, as you have demonstrated, only provides a social shield for those who act out the teachings of their holy books.  Religious moderates don't question the beliefs of the men who flew passenger planes into buildings, just the "extremism" of them.  In our public discourse, we don't talk about how effing crazy their notions of afterlife virgins and honor killings are, we just say that they took it too far.  The people that lobbied and voted to deny equal marriage rights in California were just "expressing an opinion", but they weren't wrong.  As if there's some middle ground that can be agreed upon.  

There are too many examples to list, too many corners of our lives that are poisoned by religious belief, too many people whose freedoms are revoked, and the stakes are too high to regard this as a simple matter of personal choice.  I'm sorry you don't see that.

Your suggestion that death brings enlightenment should make you ask yourself just how different your beliefs really are from those you would call "extremists".

Why do you have to lie for Jesus? If there were secular historians that wrote about your miracle working son of God there would be no atheists. Funny how there were secular historians that were living during the time Jesus supposedly walked the earth, writing about the most trivial things. How did the miracle working son of a Canaanite god escape their notice?

Oh, and lose the threats.

Your sure creationism is a fiary tale? I might have call your credibility into question. You know you don't have to believe in GOD to believe in creationism. The complexity of life is no issue for you? I thought you guys were the thinkers. 

Why are there still creationists around? What is this? 900 BC?

That's just stupid.

 Eric Hovind abuse of wikipedia.

Yes, why are there still creationists around?  Why doesn't everyone agree with the same opinion and belief  that I think to be true?!?!  Gosh, life certainly does present such cut and dry answers like "Is there a God?"  Good for you Parallel, for coming to this site, you're in good company, pardner! 

Yes, I believe in God and, it apparently pisses off most of you.  Thanks to praying, reading the Bible, and reading this site, I am assured in my belief and opinion that God( and Jesus being the Son of God) exists and is accurate.  Hurrah!! 

Atheist League UNITE!!!!!!!!!!

southparkwatcher.

You will not convince those whose Faith is as strong as an atheists.  I mean all you have to do it look at the responses.

Are they emotionally unstable and condescending? Or are they leaving those aspects out and simply stating their position?

This goes for believers also, which I am sad to say most believers you encounter act like that. If the heaerer doesn't feel obligated to believe or even listen then here comes the emotionally unstable behavior , name calling and the like. Which doesn't do anything for anyone's position who resorts to that tactic.

Atheists can claim all they want that they have no faith in anything, but that claim don't mean much. Faith that their approach is the correct one. Faith in the guesses and the imaginations of men who came before them.  Faith that the sun will come up. In reality no one knows if the sun will explode in the next ten minutes or not.

This is all faith based. You cannot eliminate faith from the life of anyone. A bank robber tries to rob the bank because he has faith he will get away. Some do most don't. People move out of traffic ( most of them do) because the have faith that if they stand in traffic it will hit them. We do not know this though, all traffic might swerve to avoid them.

YOU NEVER KNOW.

Atheists simply play the odds. That's all.

Faith they won't be killed in a traffic accident allows an atheist to continue to drive. If they believed they would be killed on their next drive, they would not drive. Faith that the other drivers won't crash into them.

So atheists  simply play the odds with their faith, instead of having faith in the unseen and incomprehendable. They place their faith in things they think they have an understanding of, if we go further faith in one's own intellect.

Faith is an integral part of being a human being.

Believers make me laugh when they try to explain the unexplainable. So do atheists. Trying to explain the unexplainable is not limited to believers.

I see no difference between believers and those calling themselves atheists at all. Same faith, same condescending attitude towards anyone who doesn't believe as they do. There is no more evidence for the approach " this is goo and now its you" than I do for "God is REAL but invisible"

What I see is FAITH on both sides, nothing more.

Indeed orffyreus.

The difference is that the atheist's "faith" is based on the observation of the results of past trials, a track record. You know, a repeatable experiment.

Theistic faith has nothing like that.

But I think you know that. Otherwise, why play the "Atheists have faith too just like us" argument that the theists love so dearly?

I am glad you recognize it is faith. That was my point.

I don't recognize it as "belief despite of or contrary to evidence" as you seem to be trying to push.

It's more of a "If I do everything the same way as I've done it in the past, I'm reasonably sure I'll get the same results."

Why do you insist on comparing it to a belief in magic?

"Why doesn't everyone agree with the same opinion and belief  that I think to be true?!"

Evolution is a fact, not an opinion.

"Are they emotionally unstable and condescending? Or are they leaving those aspects out and simply stating their position?"

Pot, meet kettle. Guess your own posts are devoid of intellect, since you're guilty of condescending and emotionally unstable arguments yourself.

Comments like this  make me think the writer too lazy to examine what even a single Atheist thinks whether you agree with them or not. May I suggest when using expressions "can come from nothing" you should firstly at least take the time to examine what the evidence is from a scientifically evidence based view when looking at our Universe with the current   "Big Bang Theory" brilliantly taking us all the way back to the very first moments after the expansion of the Universe BUT not making any claims on what happened at an earlier state of space-time (if that   and also postulating whether the expansion will continue if gravitational forces cannot stop the expansion. For example as our understanding of how gravity can be completely incorporated into theories dealing with the other physical fundamental forces we will likely come up with some surprises.  Now as for life coming from nothing, science does not believe it come from nothing but can also with evidence point to a time when only the simplest life forms existed and suggest how the basic components of life can be made from non living material which is a lot better than saying Adam came from dust or that God created life with no explanation of how this might be done even if you did believe God did it, which I do not. The strength of the current scientific evidence leaves no room for God's existence and is available to all who can honestly put their biases aside and examine the evidence. Now what I have written above may be accepted by both Atheists and God believers in part of in whole. The Atheist can both accept scientific theories and the implications of  and also the new knowledge that comes from further evidence; hardly believing in nothing! Ironically it is far closer to the truth of religious beliefs that "something can come from nothing"; GOD did it from nothing, and "life derived from nothing"; God created Adam with a little dust for seasoning. 

This is all so silly and keeps going to the lack in those of religious ilk having the capacity to understand the very real and distinct two definitions of the words "belief", "faith", and "theory".

For all three terms, the difference is that one definition is a conclusion or acceptance based on verifiable observable evidence that is subject to revision/reconsideration pending more verifiable observable evidence.

But for those of religious ilk, all three terms involve acceptance of something with no evidence whatsoever, and NEVER subject to change, plus the total absence of awareness/acknowledgement or absolute denialof the other definition.

I read all these comments and most of you are totally deluded and educated.  Evolution is such a crappy theory and makes me laugh out loud.  "Read a science book?"  I've read many science books and have been forced to read the religious dribble referring to evolution.  Forcing kids to learn a stupid religion such as this is criminal.  What if Hell wasn't real?  Is that a possibility?  Athiests have vendettas against ones of faith but their religion requires the same sort of faith, but more blindly.  When has evoluton ever been repeated?  Wishful thinking in a creation myth manner is more like it.  Believing in evolution is worse than so-call "creation myths" because it is scientifically impossible and just straight ignorant.  Idiocracy at work.  I feel sorry for such miss-led misfits.  Oh well, I feel good being enlightened, unlike most of you sad deluded fools.

Calling 99% of scientists "idiots" is not a good way to make an argument...

To Evolution is a sad explanation

Do you go to a doctor when you get sick?  If you ever go to a medical doctor, then you are denying the existence of God.  If you really believe in God,  you shouldn't take medicines created by science.  That will help us non-believers get affordable medical care.  Think about it   You are dumb.

If the devil is not make believe and he had knowledge about a coming savior well over 2,000 years ago while able to mock things, would it not make sense if he tried to mock things? How about email me if you would like to answer? I might never see a response to that from you on a rationalresponders page. [email protected]

As a Christian, it makes discussion with atheists or non-believers that much harder when all they're familiar with is the hack that is Kent Hovind. It seems that a lot of atheists are under the assumption that the Christian academic community views Hovind as a sort of intellectual Messiah- which couldn't be any further from the truth (we reserve that title for Plantinga!). The fact is he's a a fraud and he has done more damage than good to Christian apologetics. 

When he says in his propagandic seminars that his videos are free to copy and distribute (his only request being that you do not charge anything for the material) and then goes right around and contradicts this by issuing take-down notices which use clips of them to illustrate specific points, not only does this give off the effect that he's afraid of his critics but it also seems to imply that he's worried his feeble case might be exposed for what it really is- that being, mostly bunk. 1 Peter 3:15 ought to inspire you to take on their criticisms, Mr. Hovind, not silence them. 

Please, from one apologist to another, Mr. Hovind, please, knock it off. You're doing more harm than good. 

-adamryan

Well, I've read some of Lee Strobel's works. I tried reading Mere Christianity and one of G. K. Chesterton's, but both didn't seem to have arguments that I could take seriously in them. I've even seen some Kirk Cameron videos. I've had discussions with members from the Korean Campus Crusade for Christ at my university. They all regurgitated tired old arguments that I had already seen before. I have to say: Christian apologetics is terrible.

Can you recommend some good apologetics? All I've encountered is contemptible writings that make me think that there are no convincing arguments in favor Christian theology.

i agree.  i tried reading chesterton's the everlasting man and could barely make it through the first chapter.  the same goddamned hackneyed arguments.  perhaps they were fresh and compelling in edwardian england...

the father brown stories are nice enough, but even they have an obvious, overbearing religious message at times.

Where did you get the idea that the only representative of Christianity Atheists are 'familiar with' is Kent Hovind?

That is ridiculous. He is merely on of the more dishonest and/or ignorant examples of one of the nuttier versions of the religion.

As an Atheist, the idea that you actually believe that atheists look at Hovind that way is a sad indictment of your ignorance of all the many reasons why we don't take any form of God belief seriously.

The biggest argument against Christianity is the Bible.

Gladly. Those are all work from very superficial apologists. Their audiences typically are targeted moreso towards people who are already in the Christendom camp, but want to know a little more about the faith.


I'd recommend four books that'll get you into the real realm of Christian apologetics: 

1) The Resurrection of Theism: Prolegomena to Christian Apology, by Dr. Stuart C. Hackett.

[which can be read in its entirety for free here, if you so wish]

2) Warranted Christian Belief, by Dr. Alvin Plantinga

[which can be read in its entirety for free here, if you so wish]

3) Scaling the Secular City, by Dr. J.P. Moreland

4) Reasonable Faith (3rd edition), by Dr. William Lane Craig
  

I like the Lovecraft quote, btw.

-adamryan 

Gladly. Those are all work from very superficial apologists. Their audiences typically are targeted moreso towards people who are already in the Christendom camp, but want to know a little more about the faith.


I'd recommend four books that'll get you into the real realm of Christian apologetics: 

1) The Resurrection of Theism: Prolegomena to Christian Apology, by Dr. Stuart C. Hackett.

[which can be read in its entirety for free here, if you so wish]

2) Warranted Christian Belief, by Dr. Alvin Plantinga

[which can be read in its entirety for free here, if you so wish]

3) Scaling the Secular City, by Dr. J.P. Moreland

4) Reasonable Faith (3rd edition), by Dr. William Lane Craig
  

I like the Lovecraft quote, btw.

-adamryan 

I never said that that Hovind was the only apologist atheists are familiar with. I said,

"As a Christian, it makes discussion with atheists or non-believers that much harder when all they're familiar with is the hack that is Kent Hovind.", referring to the atheists I've encountered who haven't heard of other apologists, like Moreland, Hackett, Craig, Plantinga, etc.

I wasn't making a generalization about atheists as a whole, as though they're some sort of homogeneous group. The point refers only to atheists that, when asked about apologetics, will cite Hovind as a hack and think the discussion is over- because they don't know of anyone else.

No real Christian academic takes Hovind's YEC seriously. Nearly everything in his seminars are so extreme- and so seemingly against the current state of what science has elucidated- that we really don't even consider him a serious problem, except for the whole maligning-the-field thing he does.

My belief that atheists look at Hovind this way isn't a "sad indictment" of ignorance. It's a belief based on experience. The majority of atheists I've encountered are not intellectual atheists. They did not pick up Hume or Russell or some other philosopher one summer and by the time they put the book down, decide they've adopted atheism- and it's evident in the discussions we have. Most of them have adopted atheism in part because of either a cursory reading of a few books (which aren't necessarily philosophy books, such as Dawkins' God Delusion), or after watching few videos on YouTube indicting religion for various claims, after they've already decided to become an atheist. Their knowledge is usually just what they've chosen to learn (which some Christians are, admittedly, just as guilty of), and usually is limited to only a few things about religion, not theism. When I ask them about their views on Craig's KCA, for example, they rarely are familiar with the argument and almost always fail to grasp the argument's meaning (this is something even one of the "horsemen" of the New Atheist movement is guilty of. Dawkins terribly misunderstands this argument and evinces his ignornace in his God Delusion when he addresses it.)

So this isn't a statement directed to atheists as a whole. If you've read more than most atheists I've encountered have, then good for you. This statement clearly isn't referenced toward you, then.

A successful argument against the Bible is not an argument which will establish atheism. But alright.

-adamryan

I never said that that Hovind was the only apologist atheists are familiar with. I said,

"As a Christian, it makes discussion with atheists or non-believers that much harder when all they're familiar with is the hack that is Kent Hovind.", referring to the atheists I've encountered who haven't heard of other apologists, like Moreland, Hackett, Craig, Plantinga, etc.

I wasn't making a generalization about atheists as a whole, as though they're some sort of homogeneous group. The point refers only to atheists that, when asked about apologetics, will cite Hovind as a hack and think the discussion is over- because they don't know of anyone else.

No real Christian academic takes Hovind's YEC seriously. Nearly everything in his seminars are so extreme- and so seemingly against the current state of what science has elucidated- that we really don't even consider him a serious problem, except for the whole maligning-the-field thing he does.

My belief that atheists look at Hovind this way isn't a "sad indictment" of ignorance. It's a belief based on experience. The majority of atheists I've encountered are not intellectual atheists. They did not pick up Hume or Russell or some other philosopher one summer and by the time they put the book down, decide they've adopted atheism- and it's evident in the discussions we have. Most of them have adopted atheism in part because of either a cursory reading of a few books (which aren't necessarily philosophy books, such as Dawkins' God Delusion), or after watching few videos on YouTube indicting religion for various claims, after they've already decided to become an atheist. Their knowledge is usually just what they've chosen to learn (which some Christians are, admittedly, just as guilty of), and usually is limited to only a few things about religion, not theism. When I ask them about their views on Craig's KCA, for example, they rarely are familiar with the argument and almost always fail to grasp the argument's meaning (this is something even one of the "horsemen" of the New Atheist movement is guilty of. Dawkins terribly misunderstands this argument and evinces his ignornace in his God Delusion when he addresses it.)

So this isn't a statement directed to atheists as a whole. If you've read more than most atheists I've encountered have, then good for you. This statement clearly isn't referenced toward you, then.

A successful argument against the Bible is not an argument which will establish atheism. But alright.

-adamryan