Truly, who are the leading Xian Apologists/Defenders and what are their arguments?
Offline It has become absurd. Everytime a Xian posts it is the same few arguments over and over again. We should just respond "See #457" or "That's an Argument from Personal Incredulity. See rebuttal #173"
A little like TalkOrigins has for Evolution.
I am just starting to lose it. Every freakin post is just rehashing the same tired arguments of the last 2000 (or more) years.
Don't we have a responsibility to move forward on these things? The Theists are winning because they keep asking the same questions - AND WE SPEND OUR TIME RESPONDING.
Don't get me wrong, we still need to educate, and sometimes we need to re-engage the old debates to remind people why, say, the Ontological Argument doesn't work as a persuasive argument. Can we start compiling the best responses?
But more to the point, where are the NEW arguments. Theists keep talking about some crazy idea that they have "begun to know more about God" (you know - the Great Unknowable!
).
As if their religious feelings are akin to science and that we learn more about god as time goes on. Bullshit! People only feel that because THEY think more is known about God because they personally experience an increase in the propaganda. Its absolutely laughable and yet we seem to take it seriously and entertain them in their madness.
So,
1. Who has come up with a new, logically valid, and difficult argument for God in the past 500 years? Hell, 1000 years?
2. Why are we spinning our wheels, burning the finite hours we have on this planet entertaining whack jobs who have no other concern than to go to some heavenly reward? Let's start directing them to the vast library of rebuttals that have been established.
3. Where is the vast library of rebuttals? infidels.org has a bunch of them but they aren't catagorized.
Note: BWV:
The Bach-Werke-Verzeichnis (Bach Works Catalogue) is the numbering system identifying compositions by Johann Sebastian Bach. The prefix BWV, followed by the work's number now is the shorthand identification for Bach's compositions. The works are grouped thematically, not chronologically.
(from wiki)
It doesn't matter how they are categorized, just that we categorize them. And show the rebuttal, counter-rebuttal, and response.
Does this already exist? Let's all appreciate and honor our time on this planet by not engaging in Time-Thief's. People who would have us spend time on their preoccupations.
Imagine the people who believe such things and who are not ashamed to ignore, totally, all the patient findings of thinking minds through all the centuries since the Bible was written. And it is these ignorant people, the most uneducated, the most unimaginative, the most unthinking among us, who would make themselves the guides and leaders of us all; who would force their feeble and childish beliefs on us; who would invade our schools and libraries and homes. I personally resent it bitterly.
Isaac Asimov
- Login to post comments
This is a great idea, you should contact a mod or someone to see if we could get a separate forum and just start off numbering down the line of the different arguments, perhaps cut and paste some of the responses to previous posts with specific responses from different people.
“Fear is the path to the dark side. Fear leads to anger. Anger leads to hate. Hate leads to suffering.” Yoda
I find FreethoughtPedia has a pretty good collection of arugement examples and rebuttals.
Theist arguements: http://freethoughtpedia.com/wiki/Category:Theist_arguments
Logical fallacies: http://freethoughtpedia.com/wiki/Logical_fallacies
Psalm 14:1 "the fool hath said in his heart there is a God"-From a 1763 misprinted edition of the bible
Argument from Sadism: Theist presents argument in a wall of text with no punctuation and wrong spelling. Atheist cannot read and is forced to concede.
Most of the common arguments already are addressed, and they're pretty easy to find...
Todangst
Rich Rodriguez
Mine are more geared towards the alternative to theism -- the scientific explanation for things theists attribute to god:
And of course, if they want to talk about the bible, there's Rook:
If you're looking for a list of common theist fallacies, complete with the common arguments that go with them:
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/mathew/logic.html
Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin
http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism
Yeah, I agree that cataloging responses to typical Christian arguments is a good idea. Many sources have been mentioned already, and I should mention I find Wikipedia usually has a problems/rebuttals section when discussing various theistic arguments (for instance intelligent design), so I find it a helpful source.
Offhand, the only two approaches I can think of in apologetics that have come fairly recently are reformed epistemology and presuppositionalism. William Lane Craig has put a new twist on the cosmological argument recently, but the argument itself is old.
P.S. I have an idea, if you'd like, post an email address, and any time I come across an argument I'll note it and send you an email of it along with with any links I can come up with giving good responses.
If, by twist, you're talking about adding another step before arbitrarily inserting an endpoint into infinite regression. I've never understood why anyone thought his argument was anything new. It's just convoluting an already bad argument.
Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin
http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism
@Hambydammit
By twist I mean he tries to actually demonstrate that infinite regress of cause is impossible, rather than just assuming such to be self evident as Aquinas did.
Yeah. I get it. The thing is, if we suppose for a second that he's correct (which he isn't), it still doesn't prove anything about a god. It just proves that something has to end infinite regress. The end of infinite regress could be something without consciousness. Hell, it could be anything, because we're talking about something before the Big Bang, which is to say that we can say absolutely nothing about it. Even supposing that it's a god-like entity, there's no reason to assume that the beginning of the causal chain wasn't the end of the entity!
Thus, my statement that it's just convoluting an already bad argument.
Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin
http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism
I agree with both your points.
Imagining a beginning is IMAGINING ....
Thank you so much for your responses. I often mention WL Craig as one of the "better" (what is a "better theologian"?) Theologians, but add that his argument is old, just persuasive if you are inclined to think "that way". That is, he definitely challenges my understanding of the BB, and gives people like Kai Nielsen, et al, and the Kalam argument a good run.
persoanlly, I wish the Theists of the world (and of this forum) would pick up his argument (and other more compelling ones) and elaborate on it. But, alas, we are left with Pascals Wager and the Ontological Argument.
Or, the argument from personal revelation!
Imagine the people who believe such things and who are not ashamed to ignore, totally, all the patient findings of thinking minds through all the centuries since the Bible was written. And it is these ignorant people, the most uneducated, the most unimaginative, the most unthinking among us, who would make themselves the guides and leaders of us all; who would force their feeble and childish beliefs on us; who would invade our schools and libraries and homes. I personally resent it bitterly.
Isaac Asimov