Debate with a creationist

[Darth Wong]

They were never really Atheists.

I'd be hesitant to make that judgement - since it replicates the smug assurance that Christians express when they find Christians acting in a contradictory way: "Oh well, he was never a real Christian."

The reasons are different, though. That "real Christian" nonsense is promoted by people who know full well that the subject in question believed himself to be a Christian; they just add unnecessary conditions on the definition of "Christian". In the case of these supposedly "former atheists", I think they're just flat-out lying for rhetorical purposes. Either that, or they think "doubting Christian" = "Atheist", which is not the case.

[Darth Yoshi]

If you're talking about the slaughter of male infants in Exodus, perhaps you should blame the Pharoh:

Bullshit. The Pharoah was all set to free the Israelites, multiple times, but Yahweh hardened his heart each time. And for what? What possible reason could he have had for changing the Pharoah's mind, except to set up for the 10th plague?

[Big Phil]

They were never really Atheists. They were just Angry Christians who were unhappy about something and used that as justification to claim God doesn't exist without actually presenting a rational argument. And because their "Atheism" was not rooted in reality with a rational concept, they are easily swayed by beliefs they never truly rejected and easily can come back to.

Isn't this a No True Scotsman fallacy? They consider themselves atheists; except in cases of outright fraud or lying, that seems like it should be sufficient for them to make the claim.

[Darth Wong]

If you're talking about the slaughter of male infants in Exodus, perhaps you should blame the Pharoh:

Bullshit. The Pharoah was all set to free the Israelites, multiple times, but Yahweh hardened his heart each time. And for what? What possible reason could he have had for changing the Pharoah's mind, except to set up for the 10th plague?

Even if it was true, it's just more evidence of his moral blind spot when it comes to the Bible. Imagine any other protagonist murdering millions of innocent children and then saying "but the King brought it upon himself by ignoring my threats!"

That's pure terrorism, on an enormous scale that makes Bin Laden look like a Care Bear. No one would ever tolerate such a ridiculous excuse for such an atrocity from any other character. Such a character would invariably be painted as an arch-villain in any other story.

[Darth Wong]

They were never really Atheists. They were just Angry Christians who were unhappy about something and used that as justification to claim God doesn't exist without actually presenting a rational argument. And because their "Atheism" was not rooted in reality with a rational concept, they are easily swayed by beliefs they never truly rejected and easily can come back to.

Isn't this a No True Scotsman fallacy? They consider themselves atheists; except in cases of outright fraud or lying, that seems like it should be sufficient for them to make the claim.

Angry Christians don't sincerely disbelieve in God; they're just angry at him. Most of them think you're an atheist if you're pissed off at God, or if you doubt his righteousness, or if you doubt specific Christian beliefs about his nature. They don't seem to realize that you actually must disbelieve entirely, and not just in the Christian God but the whole idea of a theistic god: any theistic God.

That's not a "No True Scotsman" fallacy; that's the only definition of atheism. We're not adding on extra criteria; that's the only criterion. And I've never heard of one of these self-proclaimed "former atheists" who gave any indication whatsoever that he ever even understood what the word "atheist" means.

[SilverWingedSeraph]

If you're talking about the slaughter of male infants in Exodus, perhaps you should blame the Pharoh:

Bullshit. The Pharoah was all set to free the Israelites, multiple times, but Yahweh hardened his heart each time. And for what? What possible reason could he have had for changing the Pharoah's mind, except to set up for the 10th plague?

Exodus 11:9-10:
The LORD had said to Moses, "Pharaoh will refuse
to listen to you -- so that my wonders may be multiplied in
Egypt." Moses and Aaron performed all these wonders before
Pharaoh, but the LORD hardened Pharaoh's heart, and he would
not let the Israelites go out of his country.

Exodus 14:2-4:
"Tell the Israelites to turn back and encamp near
Pi Hahiroth, between Migdol and the sea. They are to encamp by the
sea, directly opposite Baal Zephon. Pharaoh will think, `The
Israelites are wandering around the land in confusion, hemmed in by
the desert.' And I will harden Pharaoh's heart, and
he will pursue them. But I will gain glory for myself through
Pharaoh and all his army, and the Egyptians will know that I am the
LORD." So the Israelites did this.

Because he's got a giant ego. The whole thing was just an ego-trip for him. How messed up is that?

[Intio]

And I've never heard of one of these self-proclaimed "former atheists" who gave any indication whatsoever that he ever even understood what the word "atheist" means.

Whilst I think that covers a lot of self-proclaimed "former atheists", I also think there are many that were simply atheist by default. They knew what it meant, yet because they grew up in a secular family/culture, they ever thought about it too much. They didn't see any reason for any God, but didn't question why they should think that. There was no internal analytical rigour applied. Then, when a belief system comes along that sounds convincing - in the various ways that religion can appear to be - they switch over due to a slack understanding of why atheism is more coherent with reality.

[DPDarkPrimus]

Lee Strobel is a hack of the highest (or is it lowest?) caliber.

I received a "student edition" of The Case For Faith back when I was attending Bible classes in high school at the church my family attended. It was a (I assume) severely abbreviated version clocking in at only about 100 pages, and even though each chapter was only ten pages long, it would take at least 30 pages to list and deconstruct all the logical fallacies used in each one.

I should really see if there's a copy of the full version at a used-book store sometime and actually go through page by page, paragraph by paragraph and doing a truly thorough dissection of the tripe. I could make a whole website out of it.

[Darth Wong]

And I've never heard of one of these self-proclaimed "former atheists" who gave any indication whatsoever that he ever even understood what the word "atheist" means.

Whilst I think that covers a lot of self-proclaimed "former atheists", I also think there are many that were simply atheist by default. They knew what it meant, yet because they grew up in a secular family/culture, they ever thought about it too much. They didn't see any reason for any God, but didn't question why they should think that. There was no internal analytical rigour applied. Then, when a belief system comes along that sounds convincing - in the various ways that religion can appear to be - they switch over due to a slack understanding of why atheism is more coherent with reality.

Oh, I don't deny that such people exist. But that sort of lackadaisical person is not the sort of person who tends to run around trying to convert others or make books and videos detailing his profound discovery of the One True Faith. Every time someone presents me with one of these "former atheist testimonials", there are all the tell-tale signs that he's just a moron who claimed he was an atheist because he had doubts about Christianity, or resented God.

[Zwinmar]

Lee Strobel's "The Case for Faith" I seriously could not get past the first chapter. Escpecially after I had read the introduction.

For example, Templeton was plain wrong about Jesus considering himself to be a mere human being. Evin if you go back to the earliest and most primitive information about him - data that could not have been tainted by legendary development- you find that Jesus undoubtably saw himself in transcendent, divin, and messianic terms.

In fact, here's an irony: the very historical documents that Tempelton relied upon for his information about the inspireing moral life of Jesus are actually the exact same records that repeatedly affirm his diety. So if Tempelton is willing to accept their accuracy concerning Jesus' character, then he ought to consider them trustworthy when they assert that Jesus claimed to be divine and and then backed up that assertion by rising from the dead.

In addition, the resurrection of Jesus could not have been a legend as Templeton claimed. The apostle Paul preserved a creed of the early church that was based on eyewitness accounts of Jesus' death. That's far too quick for mythology to have tainted the record. The truth is that nobody has ever been able to show one example in history of a legend developing that quickly and wiping out a solid core of historical truth.

Fixed your quote tags. ~S

[PainRack]

For example, Templeton was plain wrong about Jesus considering himself to be a mere human being. Evin if you go back to the earliest and most primitive information about him - data that could not have been tainted by legendary development- you find that Jesus undoubtably saw himself in transcendent, divin, and messianic terms.

Really? Such as? The earliest legends we have about Jesus seperate from the Paul epistles is that Jesus didn't see himself as a virgin birth. We do get the resurrection, but the divinity of God is actually something that was repeatedly piled on and added on.

In addition, the resurrection of Jesus could not have been a legend as Templeton claimed. The apostle Paul preserved a creed of the early church that was based on eyewitness accounts of Jesus' death. That's far too quick for mythology to have tainted the record. The truth is that nobody has ever been able to show one example in history of a legend developing that quickly and wiping out a solid core of historical truth.

John Frum.
Sun Moon.
Fuck. History is full of such myths and legends popping up even in the extent of denials from those participants. From my local context, there's the guns are pointing the wrong way and the British never planned to fight in the north, published in the 50s even while participants of the battle were bemoaning the FUBARED way the British were planning to fight Operation Matador.
There's also the infamous Polish cavalry charge, which utterly twisted the actual significance of the battle from a Polish Pryhic victory to displaying the Polish utter helplessness.

[JBG]

And I've never heard of one of these self-proclaimed "former atheists" who gave any indication whatsoever that he ever even understood what the word "atheist" means.

Whilst I think that covers a lot of self-proclaimed "former atheists", I also think there are many that were simply atheist by default. They knew what it meant, yet because they grew up in a secular family/culture, they ever thought about it too much. They didn't see any reason for any God, but didn't question why they should think that. There was no internal analytical rigour applied. Then, when a belief system comes along that sounds convincing - in the various ways that religion can appear to be - they switch over due to a slack understanding of why atheism is more coherent with reality.

Oh, I don't deny that such people exist. But that sort of lackadaisical person is not the sort of person who tends to run around trying to convert others or make books and videos detailing his profound discovery of the One True Faith. Every time someone presents me with one of these "former atheist testimonials", there are all the tell-tale signs that he's just a moron who claimed he was an atheist because he had doubts about Christianity, or resented God.

That is a fairly good way to describe it. In my experience people who have thought about it and claim to be atheists, only when asked of course, know exactly what "atheist" means though not all to the extent perhaps of an Eliminative Materialst.

With the former "militant" ( that's worth a chuckle at the least ) atheists there is always the vague, mystical etc journey between empiricism and fantasy/deism that just cannot be explained! A strangely amnesiac intellectual shutdown.

Of more fun are the former "studs" who indulged, apparently and endlessly, in sex, drugs and rock and roll though it takes little effort.

[Surlethe]

That's far too quick for mythology to have tainted the record.

These people have far too much faith in the ability of humans to accurately preserve knowledge. Have they never played the game "Telephone" or gone to Snopes? Or have they ever imagined how many people would still think Elvis is alive if we didn't have media to disseminate correcting information?

PS- How does he know they're eyewitness accounts? Because they say so.

[Rye]

Paul, of course, never met Jesus and even the (primary) gospel of Mark didn't have the resurrection in it at first. Someone with a status in the early church could've stolen the body, lied, hey presto; enough first century evidence for a resurrection!

[KrauserKrauser]

Nevermind the existence of Scientology and it's holy saint the super science fiction writer/deity guy.

That definitely has existed for TONS of time and is no way a large myth that has grown extremely quickly.

Sorry, have to go check my theton levels.

[Patrick Degan]

Paul, of course, never met Jesus and even the (primary) gospel of Mark didn't have the resurrection in it at first. Someone with a status in the early church could've stolen the body, lied, hey presto; enough first century evidence for a resurrection!

There were Romans who swore they saw Augustus ascend to heaven from his funeral pyre, and testified to it in the Senate during the debate on the late emperor's deification. It's entirely possible for a myth to spring into being literally overnight, despite what Lee Strobel likes to blather on about.

[Darth Wong]

The very use of the phrase "historical truths" marks him as a charlatan. Historians are supposed to deal in "evidence" and rational interpretation thereof, rather than designating any particular claims as "truths".

Yes, I know, historians do use the words "true" or "false" just like anyone else, but in that context they're generally using it as shorthand for "the evidence is overwhelmingly in favour". In this context, he uses it to dismiss questions about the evidence.

[Zwinmar]

More halarity may ensue as he wants me to email him.

[Intio]

I for one would enjoy hearing his arguments. Though I suspect we will have heard them many times before.