Hi everyone, I am new here.
I became a Christian in high school and it lasted until last year when I turned 28 and took a serious interest in science, which stemmed from my love of sci-fi.
A few months ago I became an Atheist (acceptance of Evolution being the most corroding force to my faith). I watched every single video of many of the new atheists, especially Dawkins, all of the debates, many books.
In recent high profile debates though, it seems like atheists are taking a beating from theists and it is more than a little disheartening to see the people I had recently come to see as the champions of reason and my new world view, performing so poorly. Examples being: William Lane Craig vs Christopher Hitchens, and Dinesh D`souza vs John W Loftus.
It could just be my naivety on the issues seeing that I only learned about all these arguments last year, but I cannot understand why people like hitchens and loftus are unable or avoid answering the claims that theists present for evidence of god, especially a specific god like the Christian one.
Both Craig and D`souza trounce the atheist with the cosmic origins argument. Essentially claiming that since science shows evidence of the big bang, the universe was not eternal and at some point was created. All matter and time itself began to exist. Also since scientifically and logically we know that something cannot come from nothing, the theist position is more reasonable then the atheist one that claims no god (essentially taking away the cause).
Both hitchens and loftus are unable to address this, but I do not see the cosmic origins argument as pointing towards a god necessarily. Dr Lawrence Krauss gives a seemingly plausible explanation of how the universe could come about through the big bang from what we portray as "nothing" in his video "a universe from nothing": (apparently i cannot post links until i make 10 posts)youtube.com/watch?v=7ImvlS8PLIo
More to the point the theist position depends on a presumption that actual nothing "exists". We have never observed nothingness, for even in blank space many sub atomic particles phase in and out of existence, its the basis of quantum mechanics. "Nothing" could just be a human made concept like infinity. We have no evidence that infinity exists in nature either.
Craig scores big points with the audience against Hitchens when he talked about Objective Morals, and how in the atheist world view we cant say anything is right or wrong. Hitchens tried several times to answer this but confused Craigs point and ended up wasting so much time fighting an issue that was never there. In my mind he should have simply said something of the following:
"Your absolutely right, objective morals do not exist, they are a biproduct of evolution of a social species. In order for our species to survive, it was advantageous for us to form a social structure and in doing so morals came about for everyones benefit. This does mean that rape, phedophilia, murder, etc.. is not wrong because its wrong, as there is not absolute right and wrong, there is only our subjective social structures view, and we agree as a people to avoid things that are destructive to our society and punish those who permit undesirable deeds. What it comes down to is: reality is the way it is, wether we like it or not, and that fact is certainly not self refuting."
Craig goes on to say that the fact that Jesus was resurrected is evidence god exists, and he knows Jesus was resurrected because he claims it is the best explanation of why the disciples seen him at several different locations and that his tome was empty.
This argument was an appeal to ignorance and a mind with limited creativity. Hitchens should have smashed him on this point. For anything there is a near infinity number of possible explanations (good, bad or otherwise), maybe Jesus body was carried away, maybe it was never buried in the tome to begin with, maybe the body was there and through generations of hearsay they only said it wasnt, perhaps jesus never existed in the first place, but of all the explanations that can be chosen Craig chooses this: "The supreme power of the God of everything intervenes in creation and raises zombie jesus back to life, and allows him to go visit his disciples before floating up into the clouds where he will now reign for eternity". Craig claims THAT is the most sensible and reasonable conclusion from the base facts. I think Hitchens could have made the audience laugh over this point if pressed right.
I guess I am just a little disappointed, I learned atheism from these guys, and they are getting torn apart by theists. I figured that as an atheist I had the clearly more logical, and reasonable, sensible position, and when explained properly, it would be very obvious to others. Yet from these debates, atheists actually became christians. I cannot say that it doesn't make me do a double take on my own beliefs.
I became a Christian in high school and it lasted until last year when I turned 28 and took a serious interest in science, which stemmed from my love of sci-fi.
A few months ago I became an Atheist (acceptance of Evolution being the most corroding force to my faith). I watched every single video of many of the new atheists, especially Dawkins, all of the debates, many books.
In recent high profile debates though, it seems like atheists are taking a beating from theists and it is more than a little disheartening to see the people I had recently come to see as the champions of reason and my new world view, performing so poorly. Examples being: William Lane Craig vs Christopher Hitchens, and Dinesh D`souza vs John W Loftus.
It could just be my naivety on the issues seeing that I only learned about all these arguments last year, but I cannot understand why people like hitchens and loftus are unable or avoid answering the claims that theists present for evidence of god, especially a specific god like the Christian one.
Both Craig and D`souza trounce the atheist with the cosmic origins argument. Essentially claiming that since science shows evidence of the big bang, the universe was not eternal and at some point was created. All matter and time itself began to exist. Also since scientifically and logically we know that something cannot come from nothing, the theist position is more reasonable then the atheist one that claims no god (essentially taking away the cause).
Both hitchens and loftus are unable to address this, but I do not see the cosmic origins argument as pointing towards a god necessarily. Dr Lawrence Krauss gives a seemingly plausible explanation of how the universe could come about through the big bang from what we portray as "nothing" in his video "a universe from nothing": (apparently i cannot post links until i make 10 posts)youtube.com/watch?v=7ImvlS8PLIo
More to the point the theist position depends on a presumption that actual nothing "exists". We have never observed nothingness, for even in blank space many sub atomic particles phase in and out of existence, its the basis of quantum mechanics. "Nothing" could just be a human made concept like infinity. We have no evidence that infinity exists in nature either.
Craig scores big points with the audience against Hitchens when he talked about Objective Morals, and how in the atheist world view we cant say anything is right or wrong. Hitchens tried several times to answer this but confused Craigs point and ended up wasting so much time fighting an issue that was never there. In my mind he should have simply said something of the following:
"Your absolutely right, objective morals do not exist, they are a biproduct of evolution of a social species. In order for our species to survive, it was advantageous for us to form a social structure and in doing so morals came about for everyones benefit. This does mean that rape, phedophilia, murder, etc.. is not wrong because its wrong, as there is not absolute right and wrong, there is only our subjective social structures view, and we agree as a people to avoid things that are destructive to our society and punish those who permit undesirable deeds. What it comes down to is: reality is the way it is, wether we like it or not, and that fact is certainly not self refuting."
Craig goes on to say that the fact that Jesus was resurrected is evidence god exists, and he knows Jesus was resurrected because he claims it is the best explanation of why the disciples seen him at several different locations and that his tome was empty.
This argument was an appeal to ignorance and a mind with limited creativity. Hitchens should have smashed him on this point. For anything there is a near infinity number of possible explanations (good, bad or otherwise), maybe Jesus body was carried away, maybe it was never buried in the tome to begin with, maybe the body was there and through generations of hearsay they only said it wasnt, perhaps jesus never existed in the first place, but of all the explanations that can be chosen Craig chooses this: "The supreme power of the God of everything intervenes in creation and raises zombie jesus back to life, and allows him to go visit his disciples before floating up into the clouds where he will now reign for eternity". Craig claims THAT is the most sensible and reasonable conclusion from the base facts. I think Hitchens could have made the audience laugh over this point if pressed right.
I guess I am just a little disappointed, I learned atheism from these guys, and they are getting torn apart by theists. I figured that as an atheist I had the clearly more logical, and reasonable, sensible position, and when explained properly, it would be very obvious to others. Yet from these debates, atheists actually became christians. I cannot say that it doesn't make me do a double take on my own beliefs.
