I've wondered why theists get so defensive when they're challenged.  I would think that if you believe in God and know for sure that you're right then it wouldn't matter what anyone else said.  You have an all-powerful being on your side, why would you even have to say anything or do anything to defend that?  I think an all-powerful being is powerful enough to defend him/her/itself.  I'm also curious as to why theists don't listen to atheists and just laugh at them for being ignorant about the existence of God?  I'm sure there are theists out there who do that,

For some very odd reason, I decided to re-watch the video of Ray Comfort in the Nightline debate, and I thought to myself, “this man is so ridiculous, even his fellow apologists look good by comparison”. The central argument:

P1: All things need a creator

P2: The universe is a thing

C: The universe needs a creator

Has a “trick card” up it that is about as well hidden that one would hide an Easter egg from a child with impaired vision. The trick card is the word created, which has been fallaciously equivocated when it actually has a double-meaning. It is rather like saying:

DELETED FOR REDUNDANCY

As I found myself frequently disgruntled by almost always being too late to respond to theists here, with anything more than "You got destroyed by DeludedGod and you didn't even get a lousy T-shirt" I decided to venture to pastures greener, where I could have some to myself!

What I found was a Catholic Apologetics forum!

I get the impression that they have very quickly given up on me for some reason. To be fair to them, they have been quite friendly to me, despite some indication of surprise that I am not out murdering and stealing when there is nothing apparently holding me back.

Simple question:

Why you think people believe?

[edit]

If you're a Theist why do you believe?

If you were once Theist why did you believe?

[/edit]

This is the third in the series of essays, designed to slowly build up an argument that defends the rationality of certain types of theism. This follows on from the first and second essays that looked at the roots behind reason and logic.
Today we look at Paradigms, Kuhns concept for the theoretical structures that scientists work within.
Once again, there will be little to find controversial.
Bobspence already half-predicted the points here in his replies to the first essay.

I will start this piece with a caveat stating that I have not and do not intend upon acting on the writings in this piece.  I recognize that this is a taboo subject and that most will find my arguments here to be distasteful (pardon the pun) in the extreme.  I will, however, argue that cannibalism is an acceptable act in some instances.  Since I was very young (three or four), I have had a recurring dream in which I sit at a table with a variety of people and am eating a delicious meal.  The centerpiece of the table is surrounded by blanched fruits and artichokes.  The centerpiece is the carcass of a young child.  It has been roasted until its skin is crispy and its flesh tender.

Mind your manners

'Defenders of the faith' on Cif should reflect that we atheists are only injuring their sentiments - unlike their predecessors in the cause

AC Grayling

Articles

• Latest
• Show all

Profile

The blogosphere, as I once before described it, is the biggest lavatory wall in the world, on which anonymous graffitists scrawl their wit, wisdom, fatuities and futilities. Some ("some" being the operative word) of what appears there is very good. Much is garbage. Given that bloggers are probably a skewed section of the population - skewed towards the nerdy, get-a-life end of the spectrum, more male than not, in the younger age brackets - they are not a reliable sample of anything other than themselves. But even the obviously certifiable among them can sometimes prompt one to think, mainly about the lack of historical knowledge, the lack of logic, and the lack of an ability to read attentively (or indeed to read anything much apart from blogs, it seems) that some of them display.

In science we would call this invalid inference.

In apologetics, they call it "argument"

Deleted