I’ve been watching The Atheist Experience consistently for a handful of months now (I’ve watched short clips of it before but not full episodes) and I’m rather amused by what I see. I’m sad to say that the majority of the Christians who call in, are generally making bad arguments. I recently heard someone say that the main host of “TAA” (Matt Dillahunty) has made a career of going after low hanging fruit. Some may be offended by such a statement, but this person is trying to convey that there are too many Christians making terribly uninformed arguments on the program. Arguments that, are not the best that Christianity has to offer. However, there have been some good arguments brought forth as well, but at times were not properly unpacked in my opinion. In the rare case that a good argument has been brought forth, and in a cogent way, the caller has often been interrupted and subsequently muted. Following that, handfuls of logical fallacies have been offered by the hosts while improperly calling out ones that are not.
Photo Attribution: http://twitpic.com/ajwh7p
Yet another tactic that I see atheists use against God and religion, is visualized in the picture on the right (You’ll have to click on it a few times to read it) This picture is apparently trying to convey that the quality of life in these societies is better because they’re some of the least religious countries in the world. Such reasoning is quite problematic however, for various reasons. I think one of the biggest issues is finding/proving the causation for this assertion. I would like to know how they linked the two together. Did this study (or studies) take into account: the various cultural, economical, or social issues etc?
Does it follow that since the people in these countries are irreligious, then they are automatically atheists? Were such people specifically polled about their apparent atheism or just their non religious status? To be fair, this might not be the point of the picture (rather, that lacking religion equals a better way of life) but does this make a case for atheism if these people are just not religious, yet not atheists either? It could conceivably be a case against organized religion while being silent for the case of atheism. I know tons of people that don’t consider religion important at all, yet still maintain their religious status (when pressed; yet in a nominal fashion) of their heritage or upbringing. Was this scenario taken into consideration?
Photo Attribution: Wikipedia
The Debunking Usually Goes Like This:
1. If A Photo Was Shown – It was photoshopped.
2. When A Video Is Provided – It’s edited, not an authentic video.
3. Isolated Witness Testimony With Corresponding Data Presented – It’s those vulnerable individuals who are influenced by tradition of mythos and folklore.
4. Multiple Eyewitness Accounts That Were Simultaneous – Delusional subjects and mass hysteria.
5. All Four Conditions Occur – Appeals to “Naturalism In The Gaps” are asserted…denial, denial, and denial!
I’ve been meeting more and more skeptics who have taken the stance that Jesus never existed at all. This is a peculiar position as there are many attested writings about him, from early sources other than the Bible. The charge against such sources is that since they weren’t written during his lifetime, then they’re automatically invalid. What the proponents of this position don’t understand, is that historians don’t require contemporary writings for an accepted historical fact. If they actually did require it, then much of history would have to be rewritten. The purpose of this brief article is not to go into all the details (at a later time I will) but I would like us to examine some interesting comments from professor Bart Ehrman in the video above. Of special interest is that even though Bart is a New Testament scholar, he’s also an Agnostic. While I don’t agree with all of what he said or his overall position, but he thoroughly refutes the idea that Jesus never existed. Here are some of Bart’s comments from the video:
Because sometimes the skeptic wishes to remain one at all cost
BELIEVER: Hey did you hear they found a huge boat in the mountains of Ararat?
SKEPTIC: So what’s your point?
BELIEVER: That it’s Noah’s Ark and the dimensions match up perfectly to the description in the Bible.
SKEPTIC: Ahh that doesn’t prove that it was Noah’s ark. Besides, that’s just another myth from the Bible.
BELIEVER: Well, they found the name “NOAH” etched into gopher wood, in the side of the boat.
SKEPTIC: So, they didn’t find a surname did they? Still not enough evidence.
BELIEVER: I guess there just never is…
Photo Attribution: Wikipedia
Within the Christian faith we affirm that God is omnipresent, omniscient, and omnipotent. I believe it’s safe to say that if God was not all of these qualities, then he just wouldn’t be the eternal God of the universe. We affirm that he is outside of time, space, matter, and energy. So with that, he’s not limited by any of these properties; he has no such constraints regarding this. I sometimes hear Christians say that God can do everything, and scripture seems to confirm this. In Luke 1:37 it says: For with God nothing shall be impossible. In Revelation 19:6 it affirms that the Lord God omnipotent reigneth. There’s that word “omnipotent” again.