Why make stupid unsustainable arguments?

[TheRocketSurgeon]

Do we ignore Dr. Edward Feser, also? And I got his name from a Google search that took mere seconds. LOTS of atheists and agnostics begin the path to faith by an honest evaluation of the information that is available for consideration.

Among the reasons that freethinkers convert are the following factors (in no particular order):

• Reading good books
  
• Studying the historical record of the gospels
  
• Honest philosophical reasoning
  
• Experimentation with prayer and reading the Bible
  

(To be fair, I could list reasons people leave religion, too, but I'm simply pointing out that I think your assessment of the role of philosophical arguments underestimates their importance.)

Yes, how can we possibly ignore a philosophy professor at Pasadena City College? 

1) We do read good books. It's practically all we talk about, here.

2) Though scholars don't agree on the "historical record of the gospels", I am shocked that you would even suggest that a "historical record" supports the claims of Christianity. There are dozens of holes in the claims made by fundamentalist Christianity, regarding the history of the Bible, and any more-complex academic understanding includes the archaeological and known-historical elements that don't add up to the claims being made by scripture. That's not even counting the massive scientific problems that emerge from a literal reading of the Bible. Is it possible there was a real Rabbi Yeshua? Sure... that's up for debate among academics, and seems to lean toward "yes". (I happen to think Jesus was real, myself... just that he was "turned into God" by later writers embellishing his story.) But the rest of that argument is not nearly so easily sustainable. Most of the claims made by apologists about historicity (e.g. the Tacitus passage) are dubious at best, and we now know that most of the gospels are not authored by the persons claimed by the title, and we have numerous writings of the early church fathers which demonstrate the process of fabrication that went on during the first 400 years of the church, based on later claims that the writers at the time seemed to know nothing about. It's ludicrous to suggest that "historical record" supports your claim.

3) While there are philosophical "first-cause"/kalam arguments that can be made, they are not proofs, nor are they necessary. Other equally-valid explanations exist, and it's disingenuous of anyone (in particular your "I used to be an atheist" hyper-conservative professor) to claim that these philosophical arguments are solid enough to require someone to drop one view and adopt another. Again, disingenuous at best.

4) Almost every member of this forum is an ex-Christian, myself included. The idea that we just need to "experiment" with prayer and reading the Bible is insulting to those of us who spent years studying the Bible and finding out the logical, moral, historical, and scientific conflicts contained within. I am an atheist BECAUSE of reading the Bible.

Almost without fail, when I see someone who's an apologist claiming to be a "former atheist" (C.S. Lewis comes immediately to mind, but there are a host of others), it turns out to be a case where they were raised in the church and drifted away not as an atheist by choice, but as what might be called an "Ijustdon'tgiveafuck-ist", before returning to their religious roots later in life. It turns out to be a good way to sell your books, however, since Christian readers of such apologetic literature (primary audience) just eat-up the story of a reconverted "former atheist". The problem is their idea of what constitutes generic, passive atheism and what constitutes our style of active atheism (and what Pasadena College philosophy professors tag as "New Atheists"-- read properly as: "ones who won't stay quiet about it") are not the same thing.

Perhaps most importantly, you need to realize that if you're going to make an Argument From Authority™ (i.e. "professor so-and-so says _____"), you'd best pick someone with serious credentials, rather than random conservative think-tank member who has a crappy job at a crappy college and is trying to pad his bank account on the credulity of religious believers who love ex-atheist stories and mediocre philosophy. We just don't care if a person has a PhD next to his name; we care how well-supported the arguments are and what the consensus among scholars (or diversity of views among scholars, honestly acknowledged) happens to be, and why it is so.