Atheism

[Simon Moon]

Translation:  la la la la.... I can’t hear you in my echo chamber.

If you don’t want to be reasonable, or listen to others views, that’s one thing. But attacking someone’s character for no reason only weakens your position.

No, the real translation is,

"we've all heard every bit of what is offered as evidence, every fallacious philosophical argument (cosmological, teleological, ontological, TAG, etc), endless claims of personal experience and every claim that all we have to do is "hit our knees and ask Jesus to enter our hearts".

So, it is very easy to know, within just a few minutes of listening to an apologist video, that they are not going to offer anything new. They ALL do nothing more than reword the same old centuries old failed arguments.

Do you really think that Wallace has some rewording of the same old flawed arguments that will finally convince us?

[RoadRunner79]

Translation:  la la la la.... I can’t hear you in my echo chamber.

If you don’t want to be reasonable, or listen to others views, that’s one thing. But attacking someone’s character for no reason only weakens your position.

No, the real translation is,

"we've all heard every bit of what is offered as evidence, every fallacious philosophical argument (cosmological, teleological, ontological, TAG, etc), endless claims of personal experience and every claim that all we have to do is "hit our knees and ask Jesus to enter our hearts".

So, it is very easy to know, within just a few minutes of listening to an apologist video, that they are not going to offer anything new. They ALL do nothing more than reword the same old centuries old failed arguments.

Do you really think that Wallace has some rewording of the same old flawed arguments that will finally convince us?

I don't know... and neither do you if you don't listen to it. Maybe something will be presented in a new way that will resonate.  As I said, it's one thing, if you don't want to listen or discuss; or if you have a disagreement with something specific. It's another to just attack a persons character, without even hearing them out.

I don't think that most atheists disagree with Christianity for rational reasons, and many may mention critical thinking, much more than they practice it;  but I'm will to discuss an idea.  Perhaps I have a misunderstanding, or will learn something.  Or we can all just stay in our perspective echo chambers. I also find that most of the things people call fallacious (such as the kalam cosmological argument) is full of  bad thinking.  And when given reason for why it is bad logic; atheists fall back to name calling and attacking the person.   Would you like me to judge you based on past experience, or should I be at least willing to hear you out?

[Astreja]

I don't think that most atheists disagree with Christianity for rational reasons...

There is a bit of an emotional component, but in my case those emotions are working in concert with reason.  I think it's perfectly reasonable to not believe in people coming back from the dead after several days in the grave, and being told that I have to accept Jesus or face eternal torture at the hands of a "loving but just" [sic(k)] god does raise my hackles.

[Simon Moon]

No, the real translation is,

"we've all heard every bit of what is offered as evidence, every fallacious philosophical argument (cosmological, teleological, ontological, TAG, etc), endless claims of personal experience and every claim that all we have to do is "hit our knees and ask Jesus to enter our hearts".

So, it is very easy to know, within just a few minutes of listening to an apologist video, that they are not going to offer anything new. They ALL do nothing more than reword the same old centuries old failed arguments.

Do you really think that Wallace has some rewording of the same old flawed arguments that will finally convince us?

I don't know... and neither do you if you don't listen to it. Maybe something will be presented in a new way that will resonate.  As I said, it's one thing, if you don't want to listen or discuss; or if you have a disagreement with something specific. It's another to just attack a persons character, without even hearing them out.

Sorry, but when I evaluate an existential claim, I only evaluate whether it is valid and sound.

I do not care if it is wrapped up in new or different oratory.

But seriously, besides the same old flawed arguments; Kalam, design, ontological, transcendent, etc, and the same old 'evidence' that apologists have been spouting for centuries, what else is there?

I don't think that most atheists disagree with Christianity for rational reasons, and many may mention critical thinking, much more than they practice it;  but I'm will to discuss an idea.

That wouldn't describe any of my atheist acquaintances and friends. Everyone I know can refute the philosophical arguments, and the Bible.

My entire reasons for being an atheists are that the case to support the claim that a god exists does not meet its burden of proof, for entirely rational reasons.

My atheism is a provisional position, not a dogmatic one.

If you'll notice in my post #329 on this thread, I mention that I read the J. Wallace book you mention. As well, as close to a dozen books by other aologists, such as; Craig, McDowell, Strobel, Lewis, Keller, and others. I have a shelf in my bookcase full of them.

None of them, and I mean none of them, offers any evidence or arguments unique to them.

Perhaps I have a misunderstanding, or will learn something.  Or we can all just stay in our perspective echo chambers. I also find that most of the things people call fallacious (such as the kalam cosmological argument) is full of  bad thinking.  And when given reason for why it is bad logic;  atheists fall back to name calling and attacking the person.   Would you like me to judge you based on past experience, or should I be at least willing to hear you out?

Sorry, but Kalam is not valid and sound. Neither are the other philosophical arguments.

[RoadRunner79]

---

I don't know... and neither do you if you don't listen to it. Maybe something will be presented in a new way that will resonate.  As I said, it's one thing, if you don't want to listen or discuss; or if you have a disagreement with something specific. It's another to just attack a persons character, without even hearing them out.

Sorry, but when I evaluate an existential claim, I only evaluate whether it is valid and sound.

I do not care if it is wrapped up in new or different oratory.

But seriously, besides the same old flawed arguments; Kalam, design, ontological, transcendent, etc, and the same old 'evidence' that apologists have been spouting for centuries, what else is there?

I don't think that most atheists disagree with Christianity for rational reasons, and many may mention critical thinking, much more than they practice it;  but I'm will to discuss an idea.

That wouldn't describe any of my atheist acquaintances and friends. Everyone I know can refute the philosophical arguments, and the Bible.

My entire reasons for being an atheists are that the case to support the claim that a god exists does not meet its burden of proof, for entirely rational reasons.

My atheism is a provisional position, not a dogmatic one.  

If you'll notice in my post #329 on this thread, I mention that I read the J. Wallace book you mention. As well, as close to a dozen books by other aologists, such as; Craig, McDowell, Strobel, Lewis, Keller, and others. I have a shelf in my bookcase full of them.

None of them, and I mean none of them, offers any evidence or arguments unique to them.

Perhaps I have a misunderstanding, or will learn something.  Or we can all just stay in our perspective echo chambers. I also find that most of the things people call fallacious (such as the kalam cosmological argument) is full of  bad thinking.  And when given reason for why it is bad logic;  atheists fall back to name calling and attacking the person.   Would you like me to judge you based on past experience, or should I be at least willing to hear you out?

Sorry, but Kalam is not valid and sound. Neither are the other philosophical arguments.

---

Ok... that doesn't fit my experience.   But I'm happy to discuss specifics (even though I've probably heard it all before as well).  We may not come to agree; however if you just say "la la la" and stick your fingers in your ears (as well as insult people), then don't be surprised if I judge you based on that!

[Mister Agenda]

No, the real translation is,

"we've all heard every bit of what is offered as evidence, every fallacious philosophical argument (cosmological, teleological, ontological, TAG, etc), endless claims of personal experience and every claim that all we have to do is "hit our knees and ask Jesus to enter our hearts".

So, it is very easy to know, within just a few minutes of listening to an apologist video, that they are not going to offer anything new. They ALL do nothing more than reword the same old centuries old failed arguments.

Do you really think that Wallace has some rewording of the same old flawed arguments that will finally convince us?

I don't know... and neither do you if you don't listen to it. Maybe something will be presented in a new way that will resonate.  As I said, it's one thing, if you don't want to listen or discuss; or if you have a disagreement with something specific. It's another to just attack a persons character, without even hearing them out.

I don't think that most atheists disagree with Christianity for rational reasons, and many may mention critical thinking, much more than they practice it;  but I'm will to discuss an idea.  Perhaps I have a misunderstanding, or will learn something.  Or we can all just stay in our perspective echo chambers. I also find that most of the things people call fallacious (such as the kalam cosmological argument) is full of  bad thinking.  And when given reason for why it is bad logic;  atheists fall back to name calling and attacking the person.   Would you like me to judge you based on past experience, or should I be at least willing to hear you out?

FFS, I can't stand it when someone upchucks the 'conversion by YouTube' strategy where I'm supposed to watch something just in case it might change my mind. It's not my job to do all the work of changing my mind. I know it's very convenient to sales people when they can get someone to research their product themselves, but if you can't convey the essential points of what you're trying to sell in your own words, I'm not going to bother.

Not watching your YouTube links is not 'not hearing you out'. Reading your posts is hearing you out. Anything else is homework, which I have utterly no obligation to undertake.

[Amarok]

I don't know... and neither do you if you don't listen to it. Maybe something will be presented in a new way that will resonate.  As I said, it's one thing, if you don't want to listen or discuss; or if you have a disagreement with something specific. It's another to just attack a persons character, without even hearing them out. 

I don't think that most atheists disagree with Christianity for rational reasons, and many may mention critical thinking, much more than they practice it;  but I'm will to discuss an idea.  Perhaps I have a misunderstanding, or will learn something.  Or we can all just stay in our perspective echo chambers. I also find that most of the things people call fallacious (such as the kalam cosmological argument) is full of  bad thinking.  And when given reason for why it is bad logic;  atheists fall back to name calling and attacking the person.   Would you like me to judge you based on past experience, or should I be at least willing to hear you out?

More baseless accusation and whining and no you never present good reasons just spew talking points and are rightly chewed out for it .

---

Ok... that doesn't fit my experience.   But I'm happy to discuss specifics (even though I've probably heard it all before as well).  We may not come to agree; however if you just say "la la la" and stick your fingers in your ears (as well as insult people), then don't be surprised if I judge you based on that!

Your experience does not mean diddly and no you have no interest in discussion you just want to preach the apologist gospel and then whine when we don't give it the respect it does not deserve .

---

Translation:  la la la la.... I can’t hear you in my echo chamber. 

If you don’t want to be reasonable, or listen to others views, that’s one thing. But attacking someone’s character for no reason only weakens your position.

No translation your kind never presents anything new all your nonsense has been crushed . And your leaping over to a video is not hear someone out if you can't defend theism yourself i have no use for you .And chewing out apologists does not weaken anything .

---

Just a note: this is a short video; one of the one minute apologist videos. Certainly not extensive, and doesn’t make the case for the Christian history. But does fit into the discussion on evidence. Which is why I posted it. 

It does not matter present his case or be quite 

J. Wallace is a retired cold case detective, formally aggressive atheist who became a Christian because of the evidence.

No one cares about his previous job or his previous position none of that grants him credibility or means he went with the evidence or even understood it.

---

I don't know if I will have time to watch.... Perhaps I should I just stop when he says he's an atheist as well as  call him an idiot and a liar?

By all means because your already thinking it oh and of course you "don't have time"

If you have an issue, with something that I bring up, then feel free to chime in

To which you will then fail to address

[RoadRunner79]

I don't know... and neither do you if you don't listen to it. Maybe something will be presented in a new way that will resonate.  As I said, it's one thing, if you don't want to listen or discuss; or if you have a disagreement with something specific. It's another to just attack a persons character, without even hearing them out.

I don't think that most atheists disagree with Christianity for rational reasons, and many may mention critical thinking, much more than they practice it;  but I'm will to discuss an idea.  Perhaps I have a misunderstanding, or will learn something.  Or we can all just stay in our perspective echo chambers. I also find that most of the things people call fallacious (such as the kalam cosmological argument) is full of  bad thinking.  And when given reason for why it is bad logic;  atheists fall back to name calling and attacking the person.   Would you like me to judge you based on past experience, or should I be at least willing to hear you out?

FFS, I can't stand it when someone upchucks the 'conversion by YouTube' strategy where I'm supposed to watch something just in case it might change my mind. It's not my job to do all the work of changing my mind. I know it's very convenient to sales people when they can get someone to research their product themselves, but if you can't convey the essential points of what you're trying to sell in your own words, I'm not going to bother.

Not watching your YouTube links is not 'not hearing you out'. Reading your posts is hearing you out. Anything else is homework, which I have utterly no obligation to undertake.

I understand. I’m not particularly fond of videos myself. And I agree with asking someone to discuss rather than just argument by link.

This was short and was mostly about what I have been saying. I seen it recently, and some people do seem to prefer videos, so I shared.

If the comment was “I don’t watch videos, please discuss” I wouldn’t have said anything. I’ve probably said similar in the past.

[Amarok]

This is why I didn't bother to click that link.


AKA; liar for Jeebus.

I watched it. You didn't miss anything. He makes a distinction between 'reasonable doubt' and 'possible doubt' as it pertains to court cases and then just asserts that doubts about the Gospel claims fall into the latter category, not the former, when one really understands. 

It's like listening to SteveII, without the Alvin Plantinga crib sheet.

Remember this is the hack who lent his "expertise " to that awful shit sequel to Gods Not Dead and in reviews of said films by both Atheists and Theists (Randal Rauser) called him out for giving deceptive statements about the state of the gospels as witness testimony .(unfortunately i can't link Randals as he was harassed into deleting it)

[Angrboda]

Beyond the point noted, the first three of your criteria detail what men do in response to knowledge of the gods.  How exactly that is a question of the truth claims of a religious experience, or even of the religion, is something I don't fully understand.  The gods may be real and yet men may react to them differently.  The difference in cultures and theological assumptions explain the latter without impugning the former.  So the first three criteria aren't really questions about the truth claims, but rather about how men have responded to revelations, with the clear implication that a Western, analytical tradition is superior.  Coming from a Hindu background myself, I recognize that the differences between the theology of the west and that of India are largely products of cultural differences.  That's a clear bias, as noted before.  Religion in India was fundamentally pluralistic, whereas religion in the Christian tradition was viciously exclusive.  Even if the Western analytical tradition was in some sense superior, that would not indicate that the revelations underlying those traditions were more likely true as a result.  As to your fourth criteria, I find that both Christianity and Hinduism likely fail that test.

So, as criteria for the truth of revelation, you've posited three criteria which are specifically friendly to Christianity, yet generally irrelevant to the revelations themselves, and a fourth which doesn't really distinguish the two.   It may be true that you've pointed out weaknesses in the religion as a religion, but we're not interested in the virtues of the religion as a religion but rather the likely truth or falsity of the underlying truth claims.  With the possible exception of #4, which Christianity also does poorly on, none of your criteria are appropriately aimed.

For reference:

1. Is Hinduism theology internally consistent?
2. Does it have a coherent understanding of reality?
3. Is there some sort of body of natural theology that support the tenent of the faith?
4. Are the facts of Krishna's life believable (as a god)? (demons, killing, war, wives, children, died of an arrow wound)

I think some of your points are correct. Here is a more generic list that I think avoids your charges:

Assumption: For any religion x, any interpretations of revelations and inferences made from those revelations is an attempt to derive a true belief.
1. Can the revelations and inferences of religion x be systematized into a framework that is internally consistent? In other words, do the revelations fit together so as not to contradict each other? Contradictory or ad hoc beliefs suggests an internal problem that needs to be resolved to increase likelihood of deriving a true belief.
2. Does the revelations and inferences of religion x square with science, cause/effect, our observations of our reality, and our intuitions? Contradictions need to be reconciled or they undercut the likelihood of a set of true beliefs.
3. Every religion has a narrative. Whether the narrative is pre-history or historical, is it metaphysically possible: cause/effect, logically possible, and tells us something about the nature of existence and objects and their properties? Is it actually possible: is their historical evidence or contradictions that need to be considered? The less these questions are addressed, the less likely that the narrative is a true belief. 
Conclusion: For any religion x, you can establish criteria aimed at ascertaining whether the religion is more or less likely to consist of true beliefs. Such criteria is also relevant in comparing religions against each other.

I was thinking about this and I realized that it's analogous to the old joke about the drunk who is looking for his keys under a street lamp. Another man comes along and offers to help him, and asks him where exactly he dropped his keys. To which the drunk replies that he dropped them over there, by the fence. Which prompts the man to ask why he's looking under the street lamp. And the drunk replies, because the light is better over here.