Things Said by Atheists...(Epilogue)
I had a few more closing thoughts about this series of posts after I went to bed last night. The impetus for this series was that I wanted to start a "debate" with JD Ryan, but I also wanted to bring up the common claims made by atheist bloggers and other writers that I find faulty.
I am not expecting to convince anyone to believe in God based on my own personal "coincidences" and seemingly flaky brain chemistry. I wasn't trying to. That would be like expecting a toddler, who has just learned the alphabet, to teach others to read. Someday she will be able to, but not today.
I related some of my personal experiences because that is how I write. When I used to write a column for the local paper, my regular readers knew many details about my life. I met one woman once, who felt like she practically knew me, as I am sure many of my regular blog readers feel. That's just who I am and how I write.
The one thing I learned is that atheists and Christians (probably other theists, too) speak two different languages. There is a lot of preaching to the choirs, but not a lot of communication across groups. I admit the title could have been less confrontational, but the point is still valid: there are many assumptions made by atheists about theists that are not true. To restate these again and again only detracts from the strength of one's case.
When I read something written by an atheist and I come across any of the things I discussed in this series, I am inclined to dismiss the rest of the piece out of hand. Maybe I should have titled this series, "How Atheists Can Make Better Arguments," but why would I want to help them do that? ; )
To re-cap for people just coming upon this:
Part one:
- Introduction to the series
- the only reason people are Christians is because their parents were.
Part two:
- that religion relies on a "blind faith" and a lack of questioning and skepticism.
- that religion discourages people to think for themselves.
Part three:
- "When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours."
- religious people are living for the afterlife.
Part four:
- that getting rid of religion will get rid of the crazies.
- Christians only do good for the selfish reason of scoring points with God.
- the notion that science disproves God.
- whether or not God is necessary for morality.
- people only believe in God because they are ignorant.
6 comments:
Well, I don't know if it was much of a 'debate', more of a forum for better understanding. I surprised myself at how well behaved I was. And I ain't done yet...
On another note, do you ever find that when you leave comments on a blog with the word verification thing that you often have to do it several times before it takes?
Yeah, that happens to me, too. I hate that.
Our discussion is definitely not over. I still have to reply to your last comment. I have to go out with the kids right now and they have been doing math on the computer all morning. (I am going through blog withdrawal!)
I'll comment more later.
Here's an interesting blog post called, "Richard Dawkins and Fundamentalist Atheism" that I thought you might like JD. It is not written by a conservative or Christian, either.
I was watching some You Tubes of Dawkins a while back and I was amazed at his seeming lack of ability to comprehend abstract thought. This blogger says so much of what I think, but much better than I can.
Dawkins is a scientist, and a good one, but not a philosophical one. He has a hard time boiling abstracts down to fundamentals outside of his field of expertise (but man is he smart on evolution).
And just to put myself on the scorecard, regarding your summary, here's my atheist perspective (not necessarily like other atheists):
Part One:
-- Parents were Christians: you're right, as stated, it's a bogus argument.
Part Two:
-- I'd say "blind faith" is a requirement. No matter how much other justification you engage in, in the end, you have to close your eyes and say "I believe this". I don't do that.
-- If there is a God, all bets are off regarding how important it is or isn't to think for oneself, so that's another bogus atheist argument.
Part Three:
-- I certainly said my share about the "one fewer god" argument in the comments already.
-- "living for the afterlife" is also bogus. If God existed and the was an afterlife, I'd be thinking long-term too!
Part Four:
-- Somehow theists are more likely to be harmful nuts: doubtful.
-- Only scoring points with God: who cares? that's not a reason to disbelieve
-- Science disproves God: false, but cuts a swathe through some weak arguments for his existence
-- God necessary for morality: false, human-based morality superior to God-based.
-- only ignorant people believe in God: Very Very False. Many Extremely intelligent people believe in God. That doesn't make them right.
So there we go, major disagreements to be sure, but a lot of agreement on the annoying nature of the weaker arguments. Could be worse! :-)
When I meet an atheist whose chief excuse for dissing The Almighty is not practically manifest as doperism, fagitry or a combination thereof, I will start to be a little concerned about what they say.
Until then, they still scream to be heard above their lavender-and-puce threads and the bubbling of their bongs!
"Reason", thy name is cop-out.
'doperism' and 'fagitry'? Time to go back to second grade, pal. Or pray some more, maybe Jesus will give you a brain.
Post a Comment