There are many problems in philosophy such as the problem of evil, the problem of miracles, the problem of historical knowledge, the problem of what there is (Quine), the Gettier problem, and several others in various fields. However, I’ve noticed a problem with the ‘internet atheist’ community.
Before I continue I want to give a general indication for what I mean by an internet atheist, which can include several agnostics as well. An internet atheist will have certain giveaways such as: trolling, one who cites Richard Dawkins as a philosophical champion, appeals to the tactics of PZ Myers (anyone who reads PZ Myers and is quite aware of logic, fallacies, and social etiquette may suffer from face-palm syndrome–the problem of excessive disappointment resulting in the face resting on one’s palm followed by a deep sigh), being completely oblivious of opposing views, as well as the following properties…
Internet atheists have this habit of coming out of no where. What I mean by that is they have the habit of plowing their way into conversations. For instance, while writing this last sentence I received a tweet from some internet atheist about some tweet I made several days ago in which I said that the OT law didn’t treat women immorally and that the problem was a societal issue. (Edit: 3 Nov. 18.08: Tweet removed. The individual didn’t really fall into the category I’m describing here.) I could provide more tweets but I honestly have no desire to go back and read them.
Shakespeare is disappointed with internet atheists.
This brings me to my next point. The vast majority of internet atheists rest comfortably behind the veil of anonymity. This gives them the perceived freedom to say whatever they want. Being anonymous has its tactical advantages for trolling but not much profits from it. I understand if someone keeps their identity anonymous because if their material were linked to them it would create a problem in the offline world. That’s understandable. However, I seriously doubt that’s the case with internet atheists. This also allows for profane, vulgar, insensitive, vociferous, visceral, instinctual, emotional, and clamorous language. It truly is the case that if there were more symbols on a keyboard, then the internet atheist community could master the English language (or any language, we all know more use of profanity symbols entails the mastery of a language…psh… obviously…) I know that I’m horrible with the English language; just ask my blog editor!
Now that the internet atheist has anonymity, which allows for the abuse of human language, they don’t have to worry about taking responsibility for their actions. To whom may I predicate charges of profanity, awkward emotion, and trolling to if all I have is a half-thought of Twitter name and a cartoon for the image? At least some people are willing to out themselves and be bold about their beliefs and not hind behind the veil of a computer screen. Actually, what’s even worse is when such persons aren’t anonymous yet still behave like a schoolboy bully or a child (no substance, impolite, non-reflective, etc.). That’s just embarrassing.
When in dialogue with an internet atheist, they have the habit of ignoring pertinent issues and specific questions posed towards them. Instead of giving meaningful, irenic responses they’ll focus on some detail that’s got hardly anything to do with the thesis of the discussion. This inevitably results in not reading the actual argument being made or spending their time building a straw man from scratch straight from the farmer’s field.
When in doubt or fear or losing an argument, the internet atheist typically appeals to mockery and self-flattery. That is, insulting the other person[s] and inflating their own head to the point that they run the risk of falling out of their seat should they lean too far to the left. The sad thing is that it’s just embarrassing when anyone does this. Just imagine the reasoning process (if there is one). “I should ridicule this person simply because they disagree with me and I refuse to have an intellectual, rational, and meaningful dialogue.” (I see the internet atheist comments already: “You’re not intellectual or rational! There’s no point in arguing with someone who might as well believe in a flat earth, Zeus, or Santa Claus.” Believe me, I’ve actually gotten all of those responses before. Thanks for proving my point, internet atheists.)
So, what’s the problem here? Whose problem is it? The problem is not for the theist or the Christian here. Behaving like this isn’t a problem for us. The problem is with the atheist community at large. I’ll be the first to say that theists and Christians out there who behave like this are unjustified. However, let’s be honest, it’s much more prominent in the atheist community. Now, for those who consider themselves ‘free thinkers’ this type of behavior is intellectually reprehensible. I feel sympathetic to the atheists who spend time publishing their material, getting degrees (if an option), having peer-review by competing against their peers to sharpen their own work and thought, and are reasonable, rational, and polite. There are atheists who desire for a meaningful exchange in the marketplace of ideas. I have the utmost respect for atheists who are not condescending and care about the other side’s arguments. Well, atheists, these internet-types are making the rest of you look bad when it’s not even your fault. Internet atheism is an intellectual crime.
November 2, 2012 at 02:36
You can spot an Internet Atheist a mile away. A mere glance of their tweets is littered with emotive and negative catch phrases Such responses are devoid of any rule argument and appear to exist solely for the shallow pleasure of psychological projection.
The current vogue is to accuse all dissent of “dishonesty” . The hilarity of such accusation is enhanced via the rather ingenious avatars that represent the voice of much atheist twitter rhetoric.
A little too ironic, c’mon atheists – don’t you think?
November 2, 2012 at 03:04
wow! You said that after only one interaction with me,that’s quite a viceral response fornot even directly responding to me. Twitter can be an odd medium for communication, with only having so precious # of letters the intent of a question or comment can get lost.I didn’t mean to crash a convo,I just saw your tweet and was curious how you would reconcile an all loving god with him commanding to stone rape victims. I haven’t used profanity in my tweets and thinkyou might be painting “internet atheists” with quite a broad brush. I could argue that “internet theists” duck the hard questions and come off as “holier than thou” but that would be over generalizing. IRL,I am surrounded by theists and found the internet a good place to interact with like minded people as well as have discussions with ones whose opinions differ. There are definately trolls here too…on both sides. I think having a dialog with someone with a different perspective is always helpful,I value it. It helps challenge what my preconceptions are and I have to think out what my position is more. Please take my tweet more as a question and less as a gun and run trolling op. Ps> I saw you had a paperon multiverse from the theistic perspective… That’s interesting I’ve neverheard of a theist postulate that do you have a linkto that?
November 2, 2012 at 10:32
I would love for you to prove me wrong about this whole thing. If you’re an atheist who doesn’t do any of these things then that’s great! However, I still don’t understand what your question about the Deuteronomy passage is about? Did you perform an actual exegesis of the passage? If so, can you share it? What’s interesting is that your raising a question in regards to exegesis. (If you use it to raise an objection to the existence of God then it would be a simple, but bright, red herring. You’d be treating the existence of God as a necessary condition for the existence of God and I think that’s a hard sell.)
I’ll tell you what. If you give me a thoughtful exegesis of the of the passage I’ll put my exegesis up against yours. This doesn’t allow for copying and pasting from somewhere else either.
November 2, 2012 at 03:06
Ps> glad you like the psuedonym
November 2, 2012 at 10:24
Max. You left out some points. For instance, the internet atheist relies on Google Scholarship and Wikipedia. They think clicking to any YouTube video made by someone living in his mother’s basement is a valid argument. They by default do not have to read anything by evangelical scholarship since it’s ipso facto stupid. All Christians want to create a theocracy and believe the Earth is 6,000 years old and the days of Genesis are literal. In fact, every passage of Scripture must be interpreted literally. Christians all also believe in the rapture and that the devil is behind every wrong position and when they oppose homosexuality, it’s only because the Bible says so.
Now as for your little troll here, let’s demonstrate the point. What scholarship have you read on the issue of life in the ANE and what the purpose of the law on rape was?
November 2, 2012 at 11:04
Hey “Illin” Lane Craig,
Typically atheists don’t hold to the objectivity of moral values–that is, moral precepts which are valid and binding on all people everywhere regardless of anyone’s opinion about them. The reason so many atheists don’t want to say this is because they know that on atheism there is no absolute and objective rule or standard for those ethics, and that what we call “good” and “evil” are just socio-cultural spin-offs of evolution which therefore do not hold for anyone but their society.
Most atheists also don’t want to say objective good and evil exist because… (1) If God does not exist, objective moral values and duties do not exist. But if we say that (2) objective moral values (absolute good and evil) do exist, then it must follow (3) God exists. But that is precisely what the atheists does not want to say.
So if this point is valid and you still want to be an atheist, you’ll have to deny (1) or (2). If you reject (1), it would be very interesting as to what you would say. But if you reject (2) then you should have no problem with the Hebrew law code recorded in the Old Testament, should you?
November 5, 2012 at 18:07
The same action can happen and whether it is moral or not depends on the intent. If a bear killed a little kid, we wouldn’t say that the bear did an immoral thing. But if a human intentionally killed a child, it would be called immoral. Morals are based on intent, and intent happens in the mind, therefore morals are subjective. But just because something is subjective doesn’t mean we can’t look at it objectively.
It’s like the game chess. How the pieces in chess move are purely subjective. A bishop moves diagonally, but that’s subjective. There is not objective reason why a piece called a bishop would move like that. It’s because the players subjectively agree upon the rules of chess. But just because the moves are subjective, we can still objectively judge what moves would be better than others. Just like morals. Morals are subjective, but morals can be objectively judged to see which has the better outcome.
What makes something right or wrong? The best way I can put it is a morally right action is something that promotes health, wellbeing, or minimizes harm/suffering. A morally wrong action is something that promotes harm/suffering or creates unnecessarily suffering. You might not agree with that, that’s fine, but your definition is just as subjective as me.
The thing is you don’t get your morals from the bible. You get them from the same place as I do….our brains. How can your account for your belief that owning/beating slaves is wrong? Not the bible (Exodus 21:20-2). If you look at my definition, does slavery promote harm and/or creates unnecessarily suffering. YES it does, so therefore it is immoral. I can account for the reason I think slavery is immoral, you cannot.
November 5, 2012 at 18:13
So to answer your question. Why do i think stoning rape victims is immoral?
Does killing an innocent person promote health, well being or minimize suffering?
No, so therefore it is immoral.
I’d be curious how you would account for it as an immoral act in your word view. Or do you find it a good policy to kill rape victims?
November 2, 2012 at 10:50
“To generalize is to be an idiot” – William Blake
November 2, 2012 at 11:08
I really hope you’re not putting me in some general category of those who generalize That would make for an awkward situation you’re in.
November 13, 2012 at 04:26
Then every human, including Blake, is an idiot. Aristotle, Newton, Darwin, and Einstein would be professioal idiots.
November 2, 2012 at 11:48
Wow! How amusing to see such generalizations on atheists! What else should one expect.
I have many times encountered trolling from theists – I don’t think any side has the monopoly of such practice.
Here is a comment that is a fallacy in itself (from Nick Peters):
“the internet atheist relies on Google Scholarship and Wikipedia. They think clicking to any YouTube video made by someone living in his mother’s basement is a valid argument.”
The sheer lack of logic is stunning here. Two things:
• First, may I point out that atheists usually know their Bible better – often because like me, they come from religion (I was a minister for over 3 decades).
• secondly, I am amused that so many people belittle Google and Wikipedia, that granted have their pitfalls, but are no different than book/paper based encyclopedias and libraries of books of valid and not so valid material.
What I do think, is that there is a form of frustration from intellectual theists, that like me, put in countless hours of research – then be confronted today with people who have all this knowledge at the tip of their fingers; instantly.
But any reasonable person should embrace the fact that from the practical place of one’s home, one may argue with references that would have taken a trip to often different libraries to obtain.
So I beg to differ with this article. I am an internet atheist because I am an atheist who happens to enjoy and use the internet. I will gladly concede that this in no way excuses trolling – by either side.
November 2, 2012 at 16:02
Did you not see me say that this behavior in general is bad?
You first point: isn’t that a generalization? What fallacy did I make in my lack of logic in regards to atheists knowing the Bible more than Christians? That doesn’t even follow.
Second point: You’re making Wikipedia equivalent to a paper? ……
If you don’t fit the category I’ve described here then my critique wouldn’t apply to you.
November 2, 2012 at 16:04
Vincent: First, may I point out that atheists usually know their Bible better – often because like me, they come from religion (I was a minister for over 3 decades).
Reply: So what? I know several people who have been ministers for longer who I don’t think have a clue about their Bibles. They grow up as fundamentalists and never mature past it. You could be an exception, but saying “I was a minister for over 3 decades” is not enough to convince me.
Vincent• secondly, I am amused that so many people belittle Google and Wikipedia, that granted have their pitfalls, but are no different than book/paper based encyclopedias and libraries of books of valid and not so valid material.
Reply: Wrong again. The former sources do not tell you how to sift out information and it only has cheap information generally. Most people who are scholarly do not put their material out for everyone to see but leave it for an exclusive audience. If you go to a book, you know who wrote it and what their credentials are usually. You don’t know that for most web sites.
Wikipedia is one of the worst due to its constantly being able to be edited. Just yesterday I spent some time editing my father-in-law’s page that someone was editing and spreading false information about. If you want a classic example, look up Shane Fitzgerald.
Vincent: What I do think, is that there is a form of frustration from intellectual theists, that like me, put in countless hours of research – then be confronted today with people who have all this knowledge at the tip of their fingers; instantly.
Reply: No. I don’t meet people with knowledge. I meet people with ignorance who think it’s knowledge. Consider the crowd that says “Jesus never existed.” Sure. NT scholarship throws that out and laughs at it as if you’d said the Earth was flat, but it’s accepted on the internet.
Vincent: But any reasonable person should embrace the fact that from the practical place of one’s home, one may argue with references that would have taken a trip to often different libraries to obtain. So I beg to differ with this article. I am an internet atheist because I am an atheist who happens to enjoy and use the internet. I will gladly concede that this in no way excuses trolling – by either side.
Reply: And if you are avoiding books, then you are being a lazy researcher. No way around it. Hard work must be done and it must be done outside of just the internet.
I also see above you are speaking about faith. I seriously doubt you know what faith is nor do you have a valid exegesis of Hebrews 11:1 and the surrounding context. If you think you do, then please show it.
As for Sam Harris, that you consider him a reliable authority shows me enough. Some of us have already dealt with him.
http://tektonticker.blogspot.com/search/label/Sam%20Harris
November 2, 2012 at 22:12
Google is a search engine which utilises algorithms that base results off of “hits,” whereas a library search engine is, typically, much more refined. Secondly, Google has no means of filtering scholarly from non-scholarly information, whereas a library typically only contains non-scholarly works if it is a public library. University libraries and specialist libraries contain only scholarly works. Wikipedia is more or less the same. They can be used to find sources, but are almost useless as sources themselves. Secondly, the average debater on the Internet who utilises Google results and Wikipedia knows next to nothing about serious scholarly subjects at all. The greatest problem facing actually intelligent people is not that people on the Internet are informed, the greatest problem is that they are hideously misinformed. Unless you are seriously suggesting that the moron who types in “did Jesus exist?” into Google, is on the same level as someone who has spent a number of years studying the primary source material. In which case you’re as big a vapid, supercilious, preening twit as you sound.
November 4, 2012 at 03:34
“Google has no means of filtering scholarly from non-scholarly information”
Not true. Google Scholar, Site:.edu are two simple ways to filter for scholarly info.
Wikipedia varies widely, it’s true, but if you know the general pattern you can quite easily tell most legit wiki articles.
November 2, 2012 at 11:57
B. P. Burnett, your argument is circular. Please don’t assume what atheists believe. In fact, if you REALLY want to know what our stance is on morality – I invite you to read Sam Harris’ “Letter to a Christian Nation”, and if you have more time, “The Moral Landscape”.
As for the existence of a creator God, I would be the first to believe it if I had the evidence that this god is not man’s invention. And I used to believe it. My personal study of the Bible has made me conclude differently – so far. If proven I am mistaken, I would change. But in all likelihood, I fear the argument for God can only be rooted in Faith – and faith can not be a matter of proof (Heb.11:1)
November 2, 2012 at 20:58
Now in order for an argument to be circular, Vincent, the conclusion (3) has to be evident in at least one premise (1) or (2) or both. Where have I done that? Thanks.
November 2, 2012 at 13:06
As an atheist and a graduate student in philosophy, I will admit that I also find this current phenomenon troubling. I’m not sure just how troubling, though. In just about any position you can take there will likely be a few who devote time and effort toward justifying their beliefs as much as possible. And then there will be a larger number of people who don’t. This obviously exists for theism too (as my Facebook feed will confirm!). Is it embarrassing? Maybe. Am I overly concerned? Probably not. And I’d venture to guess that you aren’t overly concerned either. So, I would say it is a problem, but not a special problem for atheism. All we can do is continue to move the conversation forward and hope it catches on here and there because you’re not going to turn a large popular movement into a scholarly one. Occupy Wall St. will never rally behind a solid understanding of John Rawls, for example.
November 2, 2012 at 15:37
I am in agreement with Mike Cage. I see this behavior constantly and consistently from young-earth creationists as well as the more common, less thoughtful atheist. In my experience, it is slightly easier to find a thoughtful atheist than a thoughtful young-earther.
November 2, 2012 at 13:34
This is spot on. I’ve had scores of interactions with atheists on the Internet, and 95% of them fit the pattern Max describes. If they don’t begin the discussion with some kind of insult, they start flying soon afterward. There’s a venom underlying most of these interactions that’s shocking–and that’s quite telling about the atheists. Bitterness, anger, malice, profanity, and viciousness pour out like a waterfall. I’ve told several of these individuals that if they want to gain respect for their movement and greater acceptance by society, start by demonstrating that you can have a civil conversation with someone you disagree with. The vast majority can’t.
November 2, 2012 at 16:42
Some atheists have tried to gain greater respect for their movement by highlighting positive aspects of their beliefs. This pretty much sums up how it went over with internet atheists:
http://freethoughtblogs.com/blaghag/2012/09/goodbye-for-now/
Sickening. It’s why I call myself an agnostic now.
November 2, 2012 at 17:36
Kyle, that’s a shame. I’m sickened to read that as well.
November 3, 2012 at 00:34
I feel sorry for Jen McCreight. She felt the full force of the kind of outrageous behavior we’re talking about here. Based on this link that Kyle provided, all of this took quite a toll and forced her to stop blogging. This should never have happened, but I have to say that she contributed to the atmosphere where this kind of thing flourishes. Every time that she attacked religious believers, held them up to ridicule, and waxed eloquent with insults, she created precisely the atmosphere where this kind of behavior was accepted and celebrated. She probably never imagined that it would eventually turn on her, but it finally did. You can’t dance with the devil (so to speak) and just walk away. In our online group, the Christian Apologetics Alliance, we shut down conversations when they begin turning malicious against atheists. It’s not Christian and will corrupt the entire atmosphere if left unchecked. Too bad Jen McCreight didn’t understand that early on.
November 3, 2012 at 13:11
Nice victim-blaming here. She is somehow responsible for the torrent of abuse thrown at her?
November 4, 2012 at 13:09
I’m just saying she was willing to tolerate it and participate in it when it wasn’t directed at her. But by doing so, she provided fertile soil for that kind of behavior–not realizing, of course, that it would eventually turn on her. It’s a shame that it did, but sadly she reaped what she had at least partially sowed.
November 4, 2012 at 16:48
Twist your words however you wish. They down to the same thing – victim blaming.
November 2, 2012 at 16:06
Max. I will say it was certainly nice of some commenters to come and prove the point that you made in this article.
November 2, 2012 at 16:16
Yeah, I expected that.
November 2, 2012 at 16:23
Max-
LOL…. I think Ricky Gervais has the same annoyance as you do:
“Twitter: its like talking to your neighbour through an open window, until a drunk yob puts his head in and you have to close it.” – @rickygervais
https://twitter.com/rickygervais/status/264457690275794946
The thing is we all get annoyed by trolls. You should see the vile that goes Ricky Gervais’s way just because he says he’s an atheist.
We need to make sure that the we don’t look at the extreme of a group and label the whole group. It would be faulty to judge Christians as a whole just based on the Westboro Baptist. Sure their are some bad atheists out there, but there are a lot of theists just as bad.
November 2, 2012 at 17:05
I had a VERY public conversation with just such a person on facebook. I got the “f__k you’s” and the like. (I really dont mean to be so blunt, but thats as cleaned up as I can get it.
This is how “I” handled the situation and why:
First he had created a facebook page that protested the CHICK Christian tracts and how they should be stopped.
He had alot of followers that for the most part were his cheering section.
So…. seeing as how it was a public facebook page…. and KNOWING others would see the conversation…. I engaged him….. NOT to fight “him” but to calmly take apart his arguments using nothing but logic and the bible…(God ROCKS!!!) needless to say…. HE voiced opinion based on half truth’s and feeling’s…. I based mine on Fact and logic….. the last time I went back and looked for his page…IT WAS GONE!!!! although for the most part, I know that the veil of pride will keep most from seeing the truth….. but we don’t DARE give up…especially when you know others are watching…. Christ took the time to die for me….I figure I could take the time and STAND for him…
God bless and NEVER give up the fight.
November 2, 2012 at 20:46
This is certainly my experience with internet atheists. Just today, I was having a Twitter “conversation” with another Christian and two atheists interjected, taking over our conversation. I bit the hook and was drug into a ridiculous conversation. After a few rounds of red herrings, straw men, and general condescension and ridicule, I bowed out, saying that it wasn’t worth my time. I was accused of wavering in my faith. The tactic is to beat Christians down with logical fallacies until they give up and then accuse of them of being intellectually weak. It is a waste of time to spend a great deal of time on rational argumentation when you’re opponent is willing to be irrational.
November 2, 2012 at 23:16
Story of my life.
November 2, 2012 at 23:15
What’s interesting is finding these internet atheists who make emails containing my Sententias name and put your name as Robert Anonymous and leaving comments is the very pinnacle of proving my point.
November 3, 2012 at 01:15
I try. I will not succeed where I’m already judged off the bat. If I believe my detractor(s) here, I don’t read books (as it’s either the net or paper), and I have full confidence in Wikipedia, even though on the outset I precisely said that they have their pitfalls. Finally, I’m an atheist – and I will gladly retrieve myself, as I have understandably not been invited to the discussion. This is a theistic site, and I want to respect that.
For the rest, I have repeated ad nauseam the context and sources of my reasoning, so I will respectfully take a bow and leave.
I am not closed on the subject , as I changed and fought my bias before, and can and will do it again upon further knowledge and discovery – but the arguments I read and heard form the likes of William Lane Craig, to name one, are far – very far – from being convincing to me. But that’s my personal understanding so far.
Thank you for letting me voice an opinion.
November 6, 2012 at 15:03
Vincent: Just because you are an atheist and use the internet does not put you in the category of “internet atheist” that Max has written. There is a very specific, vocal, beligerant atheist that hides behind fake names, avatars, and blasphemous images. From reading your posts, I don’t think you fall into the description of that class described above and therefore, this post is not about you.
Speaking personally, you are the atheist with which I wish to discuss. I have learned so many complaints and arguments from atheists that really gave me pause and a reason to further research my beliefs. This is not typical of “internet atheists”.
November 3, 2012 at 01:24
Just one word on the CHICK Christian tracts; I supported Chick-fil-A for their constitutional rights – sometimes vehemently – against fellow atheists. I personally support gay rights – but I was appalled at the ironic bigotry of atheists, claiming that the bigotry was on the other side! Frustrating. On my side, I continued to eat there (as it is good stuff), and that was that.
Just sayin’ that I understand your frustration on many of those who act this way. I’m even tempted to say I argue more with atheists than theists… irony.
November 3, 2012 at 09:07
Wow. What a bunch of malarkey, stereotyping, and more. What is the problem with internet religious people = this article. Turn around is fair and all that.
When you are having a twitter conversation it is public and anyone can join. Don’t like that – don’t tweet.
There are lots of atheists that use the internet for communication (sounds like driving while black – atheist while typing). Many atheists are not as you describe; just like many with religious beliefs are not evangelical proselytizers.
November 3, 2012 at 12:32
I still don’t understand why people are focusing on a category I’m not describing. I’f I’m not describing that category then my comments don’t apply. It’s quite simple.
November 4, 2012 at 10:32
I suspect the reason why people are condemning you for attacking a category as a whole is, well, because your article is titled “The Problem of Internet Atheists”.
I understand that you’re trying to note a specific subset of that group, but those of us who are atheists that happen to spend a lot of time on the internet just might take offense and mob your page.
You might rethink the name you use for the category you’re describing. The name as it stands is far too inclusive.
As a counterpoint, I suspect you wouldn’t appreciate it if I wrote an article called “the problem with internet christians” and spent the entire article tying you to the positions and tactics of the more vehement Young-Earth fundies out there (of whom, you must admit, there are several).
Every group has their goods and bads. There are christian trolls, atheist trolls, agnostic trolls, etc. and I’m certain some very minor edits to your article could make it just as effective of an attack on Christian trolls. Calling out one specific group is 1) counterproductive to dialog, and 2) trollbait, as I’m sure you’ve noticed from your exploding comment section. Effective at proving your point, I suppose, but rather self-serving in that regard.
November 3, 2012 at 09:59
Your two points appear to be 1) internet atheists are sometimes vulgar, crass and unkind; 2) internet atheists hide behind a veil of internet anonymity. There also seems to be some discussion that at times, internet atheists do not seem to live up to your standard of what constitutes rational discussion. THe last point I readily concede as that is subjective and you are entitled to set your own standard of what constitutes rational discussion.
Do you really think that vulgarity and internet anonymity are qualities that reside exclusively with internet atheists? Is THAT all you got? Seriously, if that is the only ‘problem’ with internet atheists, then there isn’t much of a problem unique to them. Name a single outspoken self-identified group on the internet and I’ll find you examples of vulgar and anonymous people.
I suggest you visit some of the secular sites on Facebook. They are bombarded with vulgar, irrational and anonymous posts from “internet christians”. That not withstanding, I would hardly characterize “internet christians” as vulgar, irrational or (consistently) anonymous.
By the way, thanks for citing PZ Myers and Dawkins. The more publicity our very non-anonymous leaders get, the better. Its OK you don’t agree with them, in fact its good that you don’t. It provides a ready made discussion that they, among others, are only too ready to engage.
November 3, 2012 at 12:33
I’ve interacted with Myers before. He was quite explicit about not wanting to dialogue. All he wanted to do was do everything I just described above.
November 3, 2012 at 12:24
“When in dialogue with an internet atheist, they have the habit of ignoring pertinent issues and specific questions posed towards them. Instead of giving meaningful, irenic responses they’ll focus on some detail that’s got hardly anything to do with the thesis of the discussion. This inevitably results in not reading the actual argument being made or spending their time building a straw man from scratch straight from the farmer’s field.
When in doubt or fear or losing an argument, the internet atheist typically appeals to mockery and self-flattery. That is, insulting the other person[s] and inflating their own head to the point that they run the risk of falling out of their seat should they lean too far to the left.” You just described nearly every Christian I have ever debated with on the Internet, and yet I don’t post this sort of condescending vitriol about Christians in my blog.
I have heard just about every argument there is – or at least, I haven’t heard a new one in many years – for the existence of a god, and they all fail. The morality one mentioned earlier by BP Burnett also fails, by the way. I can’t speak for other atheists, but for myself, I don’t concede the existence of objective moral values. What is considered moral varies from society to society, and there is no atheistic justification for things like suicide bombing and genital mutilation – both of which I consider to be immoral but others do not, so moral proscriptions against these behaviors are not objective. Furthermore, I reject an objective moral code that tells me I must surrender my reason and believe something I simply cannot, or else face the prospect of eternal torture. To me, that is not morality; that is coercion.
So, I am an atheist. I also happen to use the Internet every day, and often I argue with others about God. That makes me an Internet atheist. You are asserting that I am a problem, that I am a troll, that I hide behind anonymity, that I commit fallacies and appeal to dubious authorities, that I evade the thesis of an argument and resort to ad hominem attacks and self-aggrandizing, and you’ve never been in dialogue with me. You are making an unjustified blanket generalization based on a limited sample of Internet users. It is grossly unfair to paint all atheists on the Internet with this brush. There are trolls everywhere, as you know. If your experience really is that 95% of the atheists you talk to behave this way, you are in the wrong forums.
November 3, 2012 at 12:31
If my critique doesn’t describe you then it’s a good thing and doesn’t apply to you.
November 3, 2012 at 13:04
Agreed. However comma, your article paints an unfair picture based on a sample that is not representative of the atheist community at large. You make an unjustified claim that “the problem is with the atheist community at large.” This is an untrue statement. At least, it is no more true than with the Christian community at large, or the community at large of Republicans, flyfishing enthusiasts, Toyota truck fanatics, or computer programmers.
November 3, 2012 at 18:04
I’m not trying to represent the atheist community at large. The problem isn’t the atheist community but the problem rests within the atheist community.
I find the biggest mistake in reasoning in responding to this article is the lack of categorical distinction. I thought the context of my last paragraph would make it clear but the problem isn’t all atheists but they’re the one’s who have to deal with it. The argument is made against Christians all the time, hypocritical Christians make the rest of us look bad. Also, just because one is an atheist on the internet does not mean they fall into the category I’ve described above. It’s like reading the title of the post without actually reading it (this last part is not for you, per se). Again, as I said earlier, if the critique does not apply to you then it doesn’t apply to you.
November 3, 2012 at 14:23
This argument isn’t well thought out. His first point, internet atheists “come out of nowhere” and then proceeds to say the coming out of nowhere atheist is responding to his tweet. Not for nothing BUT…if you are tweeting your views and people are responding that isn’t coming from nowhere. He is responding to information you put out there. Second point, atheists hide behind anonymity and use vulgar language. Well, some atheists don’t use their real names and some use vulgar language towards theists and other atheists. I don’t appreciate that either but frankly I see more theists who hide behind anonymity and use vulgarity than atheists (who tend to be more rational). So that statement is best a wash because there are idiots on both sides. His third point about atheists not addressing issues I find ludicrous. I can only imagine that he is talking about times when atheists respond but can do more than say naw uh!!! Theists often bring up “proof” like, the bible said so or my mom told me!!! After a basic answer of the bible isn’t evidence, its just a story there is nothing else to say. You can’t have a reasonable & rational discussion with someone who doesn’t understand basic ideas like evidence, the scientific method etc. As far as atheists considering themselves superior and using demeaning methods like saying your god is the same as Santa Clause I have to say…sorry, it’s true!!! That is the problem. If you Mr. Internet Theist could step back for a few moments & think about your argument you would see there IS no evidence for your god anymore than there is for any other imaginary being. That is the point. You can still believe!!! But the rest of us who live in reality land aren’t going to respect that. The Santa Clause, tooth fairy or loch ness argument is completely valid. The final point about the atheist community being large would be fantastic except that in comparison to the theist community it is just false. The truth is you cannot have a discussion without common ground and many theist live in a cognitive dissonance where they live in reality with regards to most subjects, just not their religion. This is understandable, they are indoctrinated as children and have never been able to look at the evidence without bias. I don’t hate them, I’m not angry with them, although I am frustrated with them. I used to be one of them and was way to old before I allowed myself to question what I was taught and stunned and frightened when I began to question and my entire world fell apart around me. Fortunately I had enough education and a little support to see that all would be well until I could finally admit to myself I was an atheist and that my life had been spent in a fantasy land. When I was able to go forth into reality I discover not only was the world not scary but it was marvelous and a new adventure began. the main problem here is the author just doesn’t understand why atheists are out. First, we are out to protect our rights against tea party theists. More importantly we are out to reach people who are atheist & think they are alone. Also we want to try to inject some reality into the theist world. Most of us were once theists and we know how destructive the theist perspective was to our lives and we want to help others get out of indoctrination and into reality. We cant change anyone’s mind overnight. My deconversion took several years and all we can do is inject some reality and hope it grows. It will not take with most but we want to try. Theists think they’re right and they try to convert and think their helping and yet they can’t step back for a small moment & see we are merely doing the same thing. The only difference is science, logic & rationality are on our side while theists have emotional appeals and imagery. We are after he same thing and use different methods. One is more honest than the other. Believes as you wish but to argue there is something wrong with people stating their positions which happen to differ from yours and that is somehow “a problem” and the facts, logic and reason somehow makes us snarky and superior really is YOUR problem Mr. author. The truth is I know more than the majority of theists regarding all religion and the xtian religion in particular. I try to have rational discussions with theists knowing the effect won’t hit them for many, many years. I give up when they start spouting crazy history or religious nonsense not grounded in reality because I know that they are not at this point reachable and I’m not wasting my time (it isn’t because I’m scared of their logic!) I think perhaps you should go to some better forums if you are dealing with vulgarity because I don’t find this problem to be great within the atheist community (not that we don’t LOVE cursing but more that we don’t curse AT people because our point isn’t good.) If all else fails you may want to look at the common denominator in your communications which would be you.
November 3, 2012 at 18:16
It seems your just defending, what I describe as, internet atheism? That’s fine. I don’t recommend anyone really engaging in meaningful dialogue with you since you seem to not be a fan of that.
November 4, 2012 at 09:30
I just decimated your argument point by point. Your response, “I don’t recommend anyone really engaging in meaningful dialogue with you since you seem to not be a fan of that.?” I guess proving you wrong at almost every point is being defensive OR its just that, proving that your points are invalid. You are right, there is no point in engaging with you. My last sentence stands glaringly true. Have to go back to studying science now.
November 3, 2012 at 14:24
I think the phenomenon you are talking about is very real, and totally irrelevant, on the internet YOU choose which arguments to address, YOU choose where to spend your time, why anyone would think ANY meaningful exchange is possible on twitter i don’t know. If you are in a debate with someone who doesn’t have any good arguments then you are wasting your time, stop and move on, find the BEST arguments, that is what you are obliged to do if you care about the truth. People tell me that Bill Craig gives one of the best cases for theism and i find out his arguments are based on Aristotelian logic and a theory of time that was proven incorrect a hundred years ago. People told me alvin plantinga gave an unanswerable case and its basically anselms ontological noise, aka more Aristotelian logic, I find it hilarious that these people are taken seriously but THESE ARE WHAT PEOPLE TELL ME ARE THE BEST ARGUMENTS. If you care about the truth, and believing things that are most likely to be correct, and not just joining a club or cheer-leading for your own beliefs, or scoring cheap points for ‘your side’ by taking pot-shots at any idiot who cheer-leads for the other side, then why would you even care what the ‘internet atheists’ are saying?
I think it probably is just as bad from theists and atheists, and there are going to be a huge number of stupid atheists who are atheists for the bad reasons, but the stupidest person in the world might think the sun is shining, that doesn’t make it dark outside. Why SHOULD atheism not be prone to trolls and idiots? Presumably it shouldnt surprise theists at ALL as you think we are all hopelessy wrong anyway, it doesnt surprise me that all theistic arguments fail, if id heard one that didn’t id be a theist.
November 3, 2012 at 18:14
I don’t think all atheist arguments are hopelessly wrong. There’s an approximation to being right and wrong. However, I think a lot of the focus is so much on the existence of God. I can focus on Quine’s ontology and the internet atheist (as I described in the article) will come out of no where just to disagree. I think you make a lot of great points.
November 3, 2012 at 19:15
“I think a lot of the focus is so much on the existence of God.” Well, why not? After all, that is the key point on which theists and atheists disagree, nicht wahr?
Your last sentence, “Internet atheism is an intellectual crime,” is ridiculous. I argue that obstinate adherence to a belief that is not based on evidence, that cannot be supported with evidence, that flies in the face of all the available evidence, is an intellectual crime. The behavior you describe is indeed reprehensible, but I have never seen an atheist on the Internet duck an argument with a theist about theism or religion in the way that you describe. It is possible that that is because I spend less time on the Internet arguing about religion than you do, but I still find the claim difficult to accept at face value. I have definitely seen Christians do this sort of thing – ad hom attacks, red herrings, begging the question, etc. Not saying it never happens, but in my experience the theists are overwhelmingly more guilty.
That said, it can be excruciatingly frustrating to be in an argument with someone who appears to be impervious to reason and immune to logic. I would not be surprised if a lot of atheist debaters on the Internet were unable to maintain civility when confronted with the kind of nonsense theists sometimes spew. Not saying this applies to you (thank you for your disclaimer earlier, btw), but if some of us lose our shit, well, it’s understandable.
November 3, 2012 at 19:17
Sean says:
“I argue that obstinate adherence to a belief that is not based on evidence, that cannot be supported with evidence, that flies in the face of all the available evidence, is an intellectual crime”
Ladies and Gentlemen. This means Sean is to be presented as exhibit A.
November 3, 2012 at 19:20
Just what is that supposed to mean?
November 3, 2012 at 19:22
It means you’re a perfect example then of what he talked about with the baloney notion of “belief not based on evidence, not supported by evidence, and flies in the face of available evidence.”
Sounds like you’ve bought into the Dawkins notion of faith.
Too bad he doesn’t have any evidence for that definition.
November 3, 2012 at 19:24
Ok, what is your definition of faith, and let’s see if we can agree on it. I define it (independent of Dawkins or anyone else) as a belief without empirical evidence.
November 3, 2012 at 19:26
First off, do you have any evidence that that’s what faith is? For instance, do you have a NT lexicon that tells you that’s the definition of faith?
November 3, 2012 at 19:27
And I would like the record to reflect that Nick here has been the first one to throw a snide jab.
November 3, 2012 at 19:29
No. The snide remark was to assume I’m someone who believes something without evidence and that goes against evidence. That calls into question my intellectual ability. You made the first remark. Don’t blame me if you got what you gave. Meanwhile, do you have any evidence that that’s the correct definition of faith?
November 3, 2012 at 19:31
I honestly don’t give a damn. I care about what is true. I don’t need “evidence” for my definition of the word “faith;” it is immaterial to whether a god exists or not. You are claiming, it seems, that I hold a belief that I cannot support. I am claiming that I do not hold a belief that I cannot support.
My definition of “faith” is based on my own experience as having once been a believer, and having encountered numerous other believers. I understand the word to mean that you believe something in spite of the fact that you cannot defend that belief with evidence and reason. If you have a better definition, great, but it still won’t convince me that a god exists.
November 3, 2012 at 19:38
Sean the Internet Atheist: I honestly don’t give a damn. I care about what is true.
Reply: Uh huh. I suspect you care more about emotion. Let’s see.
Sean the Internet Atheist: I don’t need “evidence” for my definition of the word “faith;”
Reply: Ah! So you hold a belief you don’t need evidence for and yet you chide others who hold beliefs you say without evidence. So you’re a hypocrite also! Got it!
Sean: it is immaterial to whether a god exists or not.
Reply: Correct. God exists regardless of the definition of faith. It is however relevant to your claim about my belief system.
Sean: You are claiming, it seems, that I hold a belief that I cannot support. I am claiming that I do not hold a belief that I cannot support.
Reply: Oh I don’t doubt you can support it. I just doubt you can validly support it.
Sean: My definition of “faith” is based on my own experience as having once been a believer, and having encountered numerous other believers. I understand the word to mean that you believe something in spite of the fact that you cannot defend that belief with evidence and reason. If you have a better definition, great, but it still won’t convince me that a god exists.
REply: Oh I see. You didn’t do objective research. You just saw a definition that you thought fits and then applied that. It’s not based on real research. I wonder if that would work for me.
“My belief in God is based on my own experience as a believer and having encountered numerous other believers. I understand that His existence is held to be true by the fellowship of believers.”
That’s not my argument, but it’s parallel to what you’re claiming. My belief is one against evidence supposedly and is wrong. Yours is the same and it’s right. Okay.
Number of NT lexicons cited? Zero.
Not even a dictionary is cited.
Is this a real approach to language? Just give words whatever meaning you think is appropriate? You defined the term faith yourself and then pushed that definition on everyone else.
I recommend instead the Handbook of Biblical Social Values. Faith is not belief but is rather loyalty in response to actions given from a patron. For instance, one does not have faith in the sense that one believes God exists. That’s making faith into hope. We are told that the demons know God exists, and tremble, and it is clear they do not have “faith.” They do not have faith because they do not have loyalty to YHWH, which is essentially what faith is.
And please feel free to try to bring up Hebrews 11. Some of us actually take the time to exegete a text and really understand what the author is saying instead of just being lazy.
November 3, 2012 at 19:36
My argument is not that my definition of “faith” is the correct one. My argument is that there is no evidence that a god exists and that it is therefore intellectually irresponsible to insist that one does.
November 3, 2012 at 19:40
Sean the Internet Atheist: My argument is not that my definition of “faith” is the correct one.
Reply: No. It does show you’re a lazy researcher however. You spend all this time arguing against faith and never once apparently bothered to study what faith really is. I suspect your mode of thinking hasn’t changed from when you were a believer. Your loyalty just changed.
Sean: My argument is that there is no evidence that a god exists and that it is therefore intellectually irresponsible to insist that one does.
Reply: I realize that and I also realize I have my own arguments for God’s existence, for instance, the five ways of Thomas Aquinas. Note this however. Even if I was wrong, I am not believing without evidence. I am holding to something that I believe is a valid argument. I do not believe all arguments for God’s existence are valid. I don’t think the ontological argument is for instance. I don’t think the first and second ways of Craig are the best. I could be wrong in the Five Ways, but that is not believing blindly.
Another argument I’d give for God’s existence is the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead, which I believe can be established historically. An excellent look at this is Michael Licona’s “The Resurrection of Jesus: A New Historiographical Approach.”
November 3, 2012 at 19:47
Ok, Nick, there was a lot of irrelevant gibberish in there; you’re going to have to give me some time to pick out the parts worth responding to. I have found two so far. Give me a few minutes.
November 3, 2012 at 19:49
Absolutely. Lovely use of gibberish as well. Do note you will receive from me the exact kind of treatment you give out.
November 3, 2012 at 19:57
” Oh I see. You didn’t do objective research. You just saw a definition that you thought fits and then applied that. It’s not based on real research. I wonder if that would work for me.” No, I didn’t do objective research on my definition of the word “faith.” So what?
“I understand that His existence is held to be true by the fellowship of believers.” I did not say this. You are putting words in my mouth.
Screw NT lexicons, and dictionaries, and definitions of the word “faith;” these have nothing to do with my argument. I regret saying we should try to come to a common definition. Loyalty in response to actions given from a patron? What patron?
“You spend all this time arguing against faith and never once apparently bothered to study what faith really is” I already told you I don’t give a damn, and I didn’t spend that much time on it.
” I do not believe all arguments for God’s existence are valid. I don’t think the ontological argument is for instance. I don’t think the first and second ways of Craig are the best. I could be wrong in the Five Ways, but that is not believing blindly.” I have probably heard the Five Ways argument you’re talking about, but I’m too damn lazy to look it up now, so if you can present it coherently on your own without telling me I’m a lazy researcher (I’m not a researcher, remember, I’m just this dude on the Internet), I’ll be happy to discuss it with you.
“Another argument I’d give for God’s existence is the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead, which I believe can be established historically. An excellent look at this is Michael Licona’s “The Resurrection of Jesus: A New Historiographical Approach.”” Bullshit. I’ll look it up, but extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, so unless there’s something Earth-shattering in there, I’m not likely to take it at face value.
That’s all for now.
November 3, 2012 at 20:09
Sean the quintessential internet atheist: No, I didn’t do objective research on my definition of the word “faith.” So what?
REply: So it means you’re lazy and you sought no evidence for your position but went around touting it like it was fact. Meanwhile, you hold to account theists who you say do that with God’s existence. Why are you allowed to do it but the atheist is not.
Sean the quintessential internet atheist: “I understand that His existence is held to be true by the fellowship of believers.” I did not say this. You are putting words in my mouth.
REply: Reading comprehension bad? Apparently so. Let’s take a look at what I said.
“I wonder if that would work for me.
“My belief in God is based on my own experience as a believer and having encountered numerous other believers. I understand that His existence is held to be true by the fellowship of believers.”
Note I said I wonder if the same would work for me and then gave a quote that is an example. Was it that difficult to follow? Apparently it was.
Sean the quintessential internet atheist: Screw NT lexicons, and dictionaries, and definitions of the word “faith;” these have nothing to do with my argument.
Reply: In other words, you tried to pull a canard, got caught, and you don’t have the humility to accept a correction and to admit you believed something without evidence. However, it’s wrong for anyone else to still do the same. Further evidence you’re a hypocrite.
Sean the quintessential internet atheist:I regret saying we should try to come to a common definition.
Reply: You regret it because you got caught in nonsense. You don’t seem to have the ability to admit error, which is common with internet atheists.
Sean the quintessential internet atheist:Loyalty in response to actions given from a patron? What patron?
Reply: Any patron. In the ancient Meidterranean world, people got the good gifts they had from the patron who supplied the gift, rather that was the king, the ruling officer over them, the government official, or a deity. In the case of the Bible, the faith is to YHWH as the Patron and Jesus as the broker through whom the gifts of Patronage come through. See DeSilva’s “Honor, Patronage, Kinship, Purity.”
Sean the quintessential internet atheist:”You spend all this time arguing against faith and never once apparently bothered to study what faith really is” I already told you I don’t give a damn, and I didn’t spend that much time on it. ”
Reply: That much time? I’d be surprised if you spent any time on it. Therefore, your research on faith is atrocious, and I’m supposed to expect you gave theism a fair shake? Not buying it. Watching your self-implosion is amusing.
Sean the quintessential internet atheist:I have probably heard the Five Ways argument you’re talking about, but I’m too damn lazy to look it up now, so if you can present it coherently on your own without telling me I’m a lazy researcher (I’m not a researcher, remember, I’m just this dude on the Internet), I’ll be happy to discuss it with you.
Reply: Yes. I realize it’s very difficult when you have to rely on Wikipedia and when you don’t know the arguments of your opponents but somehow you know they’re all wrong.
All of them are here: http://www.newadvent.org/summa/1002.htm#article3
Just pick one and let’s see how much you flub it.
I know you just had to ask the theist to help you find information. Do you need me to come over and wipe your nose for you also if you sneeze?
Sean the quintessential internet atheist: Bullshit. I’ll look it up, but extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, so unless there’s something Earth-shattering in there, I’m not likely to take it at face value. That’s all for now.
Reply: Extraordinary evidence. How is that known? Does it glow? Does it float? Does it turn into a giant robot that will trounce evil monsters?
What is needed for any claim is sufficient evidence. That can be given for the resurrection. It’s well over 600 pages of content so it could be difficult and real NT scholars who are non-Christian do actually interact with it. Note. If you’re someone who says Jesus never existed, you’re nowhere near being ready. You’re too thoroughly ignorant of history in that case.
Again, it is all right there. Keep in mind also I do read the books that argue against the resurrection and read the NT scholars that disagree with it and read the atheists that disagree with God’s existence as well as write reviews on why I think they’re wrong. That requires actually engaging the other side, something I suspect you lost sight of a long time ago to hold to your emotional belief.
November 3, 2012 at 20:26
Ok, last time; I’m getting tired.
“So it means you’re lazy and you sought no evidence for your position but went around touting it like it was fact. Meanwhile, you hold to account theists who you say do that with God’s existence. Why are you allowed to do it but the atheist is not.” I did not go around touting it like it was fact. You are pretty hung up on this definition of faith thing, aren’t you? I offered to try to come to a common definition with you, but since it’s irrelevant to my argument I lost interest quickly.
“Reply: In other words, you tried to pull a canard, got caught, and you don’t have the humility to accept a correction and to admit you believed something without evidence. However, it’s wrong for anyone else to still do the same. Further evidence you’re a hypocrite.” Not true. You’ve seized on this faith thing as evidence that I’m being disingenuous. It’s not true, and you’re a schlemiel for clinging to it.
“Reply: You regret it because you got caught in nonsense. You don’t seem to have the ability to admit error, which is common with internet atheists.” You are full of shit. I admit it was silly of me to try to come to a common definition of faith with you because it was irrelevant to my argument. You have seized on this because you can’t address anything I said without appealing to some goddamn book I can’t read right now. You have offered zero evidence for your position, and have spent half of your column inches attacking my definition of a word that is irrelevant to the conversation we are supposed to be having.
“Reply: That much time? I’d be surprised if you spent any time on it. Therefore, your research on faith is atrocious, and I’m supposed to expect you gave theism a fair shake? Not buying it. Watching your self-implosion is amusing.” Blow me.
“Just pick one and let’s see how much you flub it.
I know you just had to ask the theist to help you find information. Do you need me to come over and wipe your nose for you also if you sneeze?” Ok, I’m done.
You have not offered a coherent argument. You have accused me of relying on Wikipedia for my research, and the only sources I have bothered to try to refer to are the ones you yourself have cited. You seem to have no thoughts of your own on this matter. When you can state your case without sending me to a book or a website, or insisting that I send you to one, I’ll be happy to talk to you. Until then, best wishes for a speedy recovery.
November 3, 2012 at 20:39
Sean the quintessential internet atheist: I did not go around touting it like it was fact. You are pretty hung up on this definition of faith thing, aren’t you?
Reply: Oh. So when you stated that we believe without evidence, no supporting evidence, and against all available evidence, you did not see that as factual? Baloney. You got caught.
Sean the quintessential internet atheist I offered to try to come to a common definition with you, but since it’s irrelevant to my argument I lost interest quickly.
Reply: No. You lost interest because you had no legs to stand on. You had a belief without evidence, that could not be supported by evidence, and went against all available evidence. You got called on it and rather than show a little humility, you just tried to act like it was never said.
Sean the quintessential internet atheist Not true. You’ve seized on this faith thing as evidence that I’m being disingenuous. It’s not true, and you’re a schlemiel for clinging to it.
Reply: Because saying “It’s not true” is the clincher argument. Sorry. I don’t care for assertions. I care for facts. You made a claim about what faith is. That claim was wrong. You made a claim about how we believe. That claim is also wrong. You’re wrong on so many claims right now.
Sean the quintessential internet atheistYou are full of shit. I admit it was silly of me to try to come to a common definition of faith with you because it was irrelevant to my argument. You have seized on this because you can’t address anything I said without appealing to some goddamn book I can’t read right now.
Reply: Oh? You can’t read it right now. I’m on TheologyWeb.com. I have a section called Deeper Waters. I go by ApologiaPhoenix. You feel free to read it and get back to me on there and I will start a thread just for you so you can tell me what’s wrong with it.
Also, it is relevant to your argument because at the start, you talked about how it is to argue with people who believe without evidence, no supporting evidence, and against available evidence, which is an exact parallel to your position on what faith is. Again, you are unable to say something simple like “I was wrong on my understanding of faith.” Instead, you choose to go after me. I find that amusing. Further convincing to me that your position is emotional due to pride.
Sean the quintessential internet atheistYou have offered zero evidence for your position,
Reply: Also not true but in fact irrelevant. I could have been an atheist and the argument that you have the wrong definition of faith would still apply. However, I have offered evidence for my position. I have offered the five ways. I have this strange belief that offering metaphysical arguments for a metaphysical position is valid. Bizarre isn’t it?
Sean the quintessential internet atheist and have spent half of your column inches attacking my definition of a word that is irrelevant to the conversation we are supposed to be having.
Reply: No. Not irrelevant. It was rooted in your charge that was an assumption on the intellectual abilities of someone like myself or Max and how your position is so much more valid since you don’t have that problem. Well you have the exact problem you condemn. Don’t whine to me if you don’t like being called on it. There’s an easy way to avoid this. Study your opponents’ position instead of just what Dawkins says about them.
Sean the quintessential internet atheist: Blow me.
Reply: Your position is flimsy enough to be knocked down with a feather. Better watch and make sure hummingbirds aren’t flying around. Your whole epistemological foundation could come crashing.
Sean the quintessential internet atheist: Ok, I’m done. You have not offered a coherent argument.
Reply: You have been given the five ways. Do you wish to assert they are coherent without argument? I see. So you want to hold a position and have it be true but not give an argument for it. You are a man of faith.
Sean the quintessential internet atheist: You have accused me of relying on Wikipedia for my research, and the only sources I have bothered to try to refer to are the ones you yourself have cited.
Reply: Yes. You’re an internet atheist. Until I see some evidence you’ve done real research, I will assume a Wikipedia mindset.
Sean the quintessential internet atheist: You seem to have no thoughts of your own on this matter.
Reply: Oh I have plenty, which you will find once you engage the arguments. I also do have plenty of the thoughts of other people. That’s the great thing about being a real researcher. You actually read other people who know a lot more than you and you learn their thoughts and how they reached them. It’s called scholarship, something the internet atheist community has never cared for.
Sean the quintessential internet atheist: When you can state your case without sending me to a book or a website, or insisting that I send you to one, I’ll be happy to talk to you. Until then, best wishes for a speedy recovery.
Reply: Because like all internet atheists, everything needs to be broken down into nice little sound bites for easy consumption. Nothing too hard to think on please. Nothing that will require a real investment of time and research. Please also don’t make us read anything that we disagree with. It’s ipso facto wrong.
No need for a recovery. Instead, I can thank you for giving me further convincing of the bankruptcy of internet atheism and how blind internet atheists are. Fortunately, there are some real atheists out there who know how to dialogue with this material and are capable of interaction. They do know about the other side and when they get called out, they can admit they’re wrong. I was just talking to one last night who’s a good friend of mine.
I have more respect for an informed atheist than an uninformed Christian, but it’s apparent to me you’re neither one of those.
November 6, 2012 at 15:19
Wow. Nick, I don’t think the word ‘quintessential’ has been used more aptly, ever. This is exactly the conversation I imagined while reading the article.
November 3, 2012 at 20:53
‘You have been given the five ways.
Do you wish to assert they are coherent
without argument?’
Lol @ thinking Aristotlean logic and first cause arguments require taking seriously.
November 3, 2012 at 20:57
‘Not even a dictionary is cited.’
Lol @ thinking the editors of dictionaries have some kind of exclusive access to some kind of intrinsic meaning of words instead of bring just historians of common usage.
November 3, 2012 at 21:01
Sorry Alex, but I would figure if someone wanted to define a word, they could at least use a dictionary, even if it is not the best resource always. Personal experience is not where one gets it.
Also, for Aristotlean logic, do you have a problem at the start with say, the LNC?
November 3, 2012 at 21:12
no
November 3, 2012 at 21:13
Okay. Then what is your problem if you accept that with the Aristotlean approach?
November 3, 2012 at 21:24
well it implies presentism, and presentism is false.
November 3, 2012 at 21:26
Please back both cases. Note if you do not answer before too long tonight, I won’t answer until Monday. I do not do internet debate on Sunday. I just wanted to state that in case you posted and I am some time in replying.
November 3, 2012 at 21:45
As I’m reading this, I felt the need to place the words “faith” and “reason” in their different meanings:
________
• Definition of FAITH
1 – a : allegiance to duty or a person : loyalty
b (1) : fidelity to one’s promises (2) : sincerity of intentions
2 – a (1) : belief and trust in and loyalty to God (2) : belief in the traditional doctrines of a religion
b (1) : firm belief in something for which there is no proof (2) : complete trust
3 – something that is believed especially with strong conviction; especially : a system of religious beliefs
— on faith
: without question
________
• Definition of REASON
1 – a : a statement offered in explanation or justification
b : a rational ground or motive
c : a sufficient ground of explanation or of logical defense; especially : something (as a principle or law) that supports a conclusion or explains a fact
d : the thing that makes some fact intelligible : cause
2 – a (1) : the power of comprehending, inferring, or thinking especially in orderly rational ways : intelligence (2) : proper exercise of the mind (3) : sanity
b : the sum of the intellectual powers
3 – (archaic) : treatment that affords satisfaction
— in reason
: rightly, justifiably
— within reason
: within reasonable limits
— with reason
: with good cause
______
In view of the different meanings of each one of these words, it dawns on me the theists and atheists practice at least one form of each these qualities.
The reason I brought up Heb. 11:1 earlier, is that I know many, many Christians that hold that definition superior to the Dictionary’s. Not all of course – but many. Those ones feel the Biblical definition superior and Holy.
So I do not mock faith – as I have per definition some myself. Interestingly, even Dawkins has made a good point (for atheists), that he too has and practices faith – I forget the video at this time, but it included his head being in the way of a swinging boulder that showed his ‘faith’ in the science of physics.
What I respectively have a problem with, is that Faith alone is the locomotive for believing in God. When I believed in God, I claimed that no material evidence could divert me from my Creator. And none ever did – at first. It was the circumstantial evidence that started my doubts, followed by logic – a logic, I will concede, that focused on what I knew to be true and verifiable, or rational if you will.
So I have no argument beyond that. If anyone wants to claim Faith, I will take my bow and take leave. There is no disputing Faith, and it’s something too many atheists don’t get.
November 3, 2012 at 21:46
Vincent. Could you be clear what kind of faith you think Hebrews 11 espouses and then give an exegesis of the text that shows that? I will contend it shows the loyalty definition that I gave.
November 3, 2012 at 22:36
I would gladly do that, although cannot claim any privileged erudition on the subject.
Maybe you can point out where I am mistaken in my understanding.
Heb. 11:1 (NIV) “Now faith is confidence in what we hope for and assurance about what we do not see.”
The KJV translates: “Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.”
A little different, but overall – as I understood it for a long time now, Faith is based on “hope.”
Some would compare hope to “wish”, but the difference between hope and wish is that the latter has no solid grounds. Still hope is not a guarantee of success, or it would be “confidence (substance) of what we KNOW, precisely thru proper evidence.
But here’s where I find a multiplication of problems:
It is assumed that what we cannot see can be called ‘evidence’. On that basis, the double problem is that not only is Faith based on hope, with confidence – all of it based on unseen evidence.
Now, I realize this may be understood by realities we may not see, but DISCERN.
However, the original Greek word “blepomenōn” is indeed the word ‘seen’, but always preceded by ‘not’ (not seen/not yet seen).
Not ‘yet’ seen is more open to evidence yet to come. So in the best cases, it hope based on evidence to come. But how can we know that?
This is my problem with faith. It suggests clairvoyance or total confidence in the writers of the Bible. I do not think this is wise, as we now know of many flaws that would contradict that it is inspired by an omniscient creator. This is without the scientific mistakes or candid ignorance it portrays on many fronts.
I have articulated this the best I could…
I do know the rationalizations to this unusual verse, as I used them myself — but my mind and conscience could not sustain this logic anymore.
November 3, 2012 at 22:52
Also not to forget the context, as Hebrews lists the servants of God – like Noah – who “by faith” did what they did. Paul ends this chapter with “These were all commended for their faith, yet none of them received what had been promised,since God had planned something better for us so that only together with us would they be made perfect.”
So yes, Loyalty is indeed one of the definitions. It is just not the only one.
November 3, 2012 at 23:09
I must add that Paul gives no hint about loyalty in his definition, as he talks about faith ”being” (is) confidence (substance) in what we hope for – not a form of active loyalty, but a state of understanding and condition of the heart, IMO…
November 3, 2012 at 22:42
Sorry for the horrid typos – time for bed.
November 4, 2012 at 14:16
I was on a site where a Christian complained that 80 per cent of the atheists they dealt with were insincere and given to mockery rather than intelligent conversation. I’m afraid that has been my experience as well. The majority I have come across seem to think that hurling insults represents an acceptable manner of discussion.
I have concluded that those who resort to that kind of behaviour do not have the information or the ability to intelligently and reasonably refute what a Christian is saying. Rather than admit that, they try to shut the Christian up or drive her/him away with rudeness and disrespect.
I spend so much time trying to explain what the Bible really says and what Christians really believe because the majority of them haven’t got a clue. They repeat the pack of lies they get from atheist sites without even checking to make sure there is any validity to them. I have come to the conclusion that, if the information lines up with the beliefs they hold, then they don’t care whether it’s true or not. They’ll tout it anyway. The worst ones practise a kind of obscurantistm, burying their head in the sand rather than even consider the arguments of those on the opposing side.
Are there intelligent, reasonable atheists out there who are capable of carrying on intellgient, respectful conversations? Of course there are. But they are outnumbered by the bad ones and they must truly be as frustrated by them as we Christians are.
Are there ignorant, unreasonable people out there posting in an ungodly fashion even though they call themselves Christians? Yes, there are and I join the atheists in being frustrated and annoyed by them.
I have learned that, when the atheists don’t attempt to refute what I have said or offer any kind of reasonable discussion but simply make sarcastic and belittling comments, it’s time to simply post some good resources for anybody interested to pursue. After all, the Bible tells us not to throw our pearls before swine.
November 7, 2012 at 10:48
I respectfully disagree that the bad atheists (which I have most problems with) outnumber us reasonable ones.
In my case, I’m a seeker above all.
I consider my own bias a deceitful enemy, and I have successfully, if not easily, won against it many times.
I stay open to the possibility of an intelligent creator, and would be happy to embrace the news if found to be logical and reasonable. I don’t think everything is reducible to matter, so the evidence does not have to me material – but it must be strong circumstantial evidence at the least. I think this is a fair and reasonable expectation.
I am forced to ignore the simple statements like “Just look around you, and creation – they witness to the power of God!” – because it is no different than to point out thunder and lightning as proof of Thor’s existence and power.
I need more than that.
I do tend to argue passionately – but refuse to be rude in any way, and try hard to keep cool sometimes.
Just introducing myself to you.
November 6, 2012 at 12:01
Vincent: I would gladly do that, although cannot claim any privileged erudition on the subject.
Maybe you can point out where I am mistaken in my understanding.
Reply: Yep. Let’s see what we get!
Vincent: Heb. 11:1 (NIV) “Now faith is confidence in what we hope for and assurance about what we do not see.”
The KJV translates: “Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.”
A little different, but overall – as I understood it for a long time now, Faith is based on “hope.”
Some would compare hope to “wish”, but the difference between hope and wish is that the latter has no solid grounds. Still hope is not a guarantee of success, or it would be “confidence (substance) of what we KNOW, precisely thru proper evidence.
Reply: The reality is that in the ancient world, hope was in fact confidence. When Paul says he is on trial for the hope of the resurrection of the dead, he is not saying that he has this great desire that it will happen. He is in fact saying he knows it will happen. Now you could claim Paul’s knowledge is not really knowledge, but on Paul’s part, there is no question.
According to the Handbook of Biblical social values, hope is the value found in placing allegiance in the patron to bring about that which they state. It is a confidence that the patron is true to his word. Hope then means that one is certain that the patron will do what they promised.
Vincent: But here’s where I find a multiplication of problems:
It is assumed that what we cannot see can be called ‘evidence’. On that basis, the double problem is that not only is Faith based on hope, with confidence – all of it based on unseen evidence.
Reply: The problem is you’[re talking about what cannot be seen but not stating what this is. To say something cannot be seen does not mean it is totally unknown. I will get into this later.
Vincent: Now, I realize this may be understood by realities we may not see, but DISCERN.
However, the original Greek word “blepomenōn” is indeed the word ‘seen’, but always preceded by ‘not’ (not seen/not yet seen).
Not ‘yet’ seen is more open to evidence yet to come. So in the best cases, it hope based on evidence to come. But how can we know that?
Reply: The simple answer is by looking at the past and seeing the past likelihood. How do I know the rock will fall when I drop it from my hand? Well past experience of dropping rocks sure plays a big part!
Vincent: This is my problem with faith. It suggests clairvoyance or total confidence in the writers of the Bible. I do not think this is wise, as we now know of many flaws that would contradict that it is inspired by an omniscient creator. This is without the scientific mistakes or candid ignorance it portrays on many fronts.
Reply: Inerrancy is a non-issue to me.
Vincent: Also not to forget the context, as Hebrews lists the servants of God – like Noah – who “by faith” did what they did. Paul ends this chapter with “These were all commended for their faith, yet none of them received what had been promised,since God had planned something better for us so that only together with us would they be made perfect.”
So yes, Loyalty is indeed one of the definitions. It is just not the only one.
Reply: This doesn’t contradict loyalty. When I get to my exegesis, that will be brought out. Minor point also. I don’t think Paul wrote Hebrews, but I think we’d agree that doesn’t affect the substance of the argument.
I notice however in your exegesis, you only looked at one verse. You didn’t look at the surrounding context and a minister should know to do that.
Hebrews is written to Alexandrian Jews who have become Christians and are tempted to return to their old system due to the shame that they have faced. Hebrews 10 tells us they have not yet had the shedding of their blood yet so what is at threat is shame, which was taken very seriously in the ancient world.
In the chapter before, we are told about those who apostasize and the grave consequences that await them. What will it mean if someone abandons the covenant? The writer then says that he expects better from the Hebrews.
What does he expect? He expects their continued loyalty to the covenant. They are in a tough spot now in the already-not yet area. They know of the promises in Christ, but they have not seen the full realization of them. That is in the future.
And we all know we can’t see the future.
And that is what is unseen in the passage. The unseen is in the future, but we are to be loyal with what has been revealed. We can have certainty that what will be brought about will indeed be brought about. God will remain true to His word.
Do we need examples of this? The writer lists several. All of these people did not see the future, but all of them believed that God was going to honor His word. They remained loyal to what they had been shown and because of that the promises are for them. They are our surrounding witnesses as we continue as chapter 12 says, therefore we are to remain loyal of the certainty that will come about.
Note that none of this would indicate blind faith. If blind belief was being talked about, why write a letter to deal with the opposition presenting evidence that their claims are incorrect. (note that this is evidence from the past authority of the OT they took seriously. You might not consider it valid, but they surely did.)
Now feel free to show where my exegesis is invalid.
November 7, 2012 at 10:31
Nick – I have indeed considered the context.
This said, I do find your exegesis perfectly valid and well articulated. I must agree with your analysis, and the point by point clarifications.
I think you can agree with me that the vast majority do not have such understanding in the context of the epistle to the Hebrews. May I just point out that “Faith” has a connotation that fits the spirit of what I was trying to argue. Nonetheless, your argument fits the basis of this discussion more precisely, and I can only agree with you.
Going back to my concern; I noted, “What I respectively have a problem with, is that Faith alone is the locomotive for believing in God.”
Today, we do not live in the context you justifiably laid out. The zeitgeist has disappeared. At the time, miracles were used to confirm and give attestation to Jesus’ supernatural and divine essence. Two thousand years later, it is not surprising that these could sincerely be considered just legendary, as there is no such evidence to back up the existence of God, nor his concern for us humans. Such reveal would be easy for him, no?
In every key moment of Biblical history, God had helped belief with supernatural and amazing reveals to his people – whether with Moses, Noah, etc… and Jesus of course. The reason people like me doubt of the alleged realities of such stories, is that they are totally absent today. Another reason for reasonable doubt is that throughout history – to this very day – religion has so much blood on it’s hands, that linking any of them to a loving god is preposterous. But this should not be a surprise, as the God of the OT has been guilty of genocide himself – and not just any genocide; the killing of men, ripping apart of pregnant women, smashing of babies, rape, slavery, etc… (Hosea’s account is just one of those inexcusable horrors.)
Back to faith – how can any person today be blamed, or even guilty, for not believing such god exist, let alone be loyal to such deity?
November 7, 2012 at 10:44
Vincent: Nick – I have indeed considered the context. This said, I do find your exegesis perfectly valid and well articulated. I must agree with your analysis, and the point by point clarifications.
REply: Respect points go up hugely with this!
Vincent: I think you can agree with me that the vast majority do not have such understanding in the context of the epistle to the Hebrews. May I just point out that “Faith” has a connotation that fits the spirit of what I was trying to argue.
REply: I’ll go further. I’m blunt as can be. Most of the church is way too ignorant to handle anything. They think with only their feelings and believe God is speaking to them on a regular basis and consider ignorance to be a virtue. I would agree most people think blind faith is a virtue. Individualism is killing our church and more people are interested in being entertained than informed. If you think you’re hard on the church, I can assure you I’m harder.
Vincent: Nonetheless, your argument fits the basis of this discussion more precisely, and I can only agree with you. Going back to my concern; I noted, “What I respectively have a problem with, is that Faith alone is the locomotive for believing in God.” Today, we do not live in the context you justifiably laid out. The zeitgeist has disappeared.
Reply: This will get into the historical question. Let’s be clear that the Bible then is not affirming the blind faith today.
Vincent: At the time, miracles were used to confirm and give attestation to Jesus’ supernatural and divine essence. Two thousand years later, it is not surprising that these could sincerely be considered just legendary, as there is no such evidence to back up the existence of God, nor his concern for us humans.
Reply: Claims like this are disappointing. Why? It assumes people like myself believe without evidence. We don’t. I, for instance, would point to the five ways of Thomas Aquinas and the resurrection of Jesus Christ as arguments. For the latter, I would gladly give evidence, although the best case can be found in “The Resurrection of Jesus Christ: A New Historiographical Approach” by Mike Licona.
Vincent: Such reveal would be easy for him, no? In every key moment of Biblical history, God had helped belief with supernatural and amazing reveals to his people – whether with Moses, Noah, etc… and Jesus of course. The reason people like me doubt of the alleged realities of such stories, is that they are totally absent today.
Reply; Have you read Keener’s “Miracles” yet? Keener documents several miracles that are taking place in the majority world today and yes, some of them are happening over here. If anyone wants to claim miracles are not happening today, they must deal with Keener.
Vincent: Another reason for reasonable doubt is that throughout history – to this very day – religion has so much blood on it’s hands, that linking any of them to a loving god is preposterous.
REply: A number of problems with this. First off, is something like the Crusades a logical outworking of the teaching of Christ, or is it a misuse?
Second, many of these events did not happen to the extent that we think they did. For instance, the Crusades were largely defensive wars. The Muslims made the first strike. Some Crusaders did awful things. A lot didn’t. The Spanish Inquisition was the worst inquistion and a work like Henry Kamen’s on the topic can show that there is a huge amount of myth that has grown up around it.
Vincent: But this should not be a surprise, as the God of the OT has been guilty of genocide himself – and not just any genocide; the killing of men, ripping apart of pregnant women, smashing of babies, rape, slavery, etc… (Hosea’s account is just one of those inexcusable horrors.)
Reply: Which case should we deal with first?
Vincent: Back to faith – how can any person today be blamed, or even guilty, for not believing such god exist, let alone be loyal to such deity?
Reply: If there is evidence and it is being ignored, one is accountable. For instance, this is about the problem of evil, but do you have a metaphysical basis for goodness itself? How can good be defined by naturalistic methods? By the way, I do have a reply if you try Harris on this.
November 10, 2012 at 13:15
Thank you so much for your time and care with me.
Yes, I was indeed going to refer to Harris, and the link between morality and well being, so I would more than welcome your reply.
November 10, 2012 at 13:17
Vincent. If I sense you’re paying serious attention to the subject and open to other opinions, you get respect. If not, you don’t. Simple enough.
For my reply to Harris….
http://tektonticker.blogspot.com/search/label/Sam%20Harris
November 10, 2012 at 13:28
Just be careful not to judge my intentions. I have been honestly opened to your comments, and agreed on points that you cleared up. It’s not because I don’t agree with Craig Keener’s reasoning that I automatically should be demonized for my position. I have many reasons to find Keener’s arguments lacking – and at this precise time, I am in a deadline crunch with my job, so I’ll have to expound later.
November 10, 2012 at 13:34
//At my writing of this, Harris has just concluded recently a debate with William Lane Craig where Harris was thoroughly outmatched.//
This is where we cannot agree at one point. You see, I saw this debate and I felt the contrary, that Harris outmatched, and by far, WLG.
There is a point where debate is pointless. I will continue to read your blog however – so far, I feel you bath in logical fallacies.
I’ve also had this discussion many a times. So you will understand my reticence to debate any further for now.
I do thank you for your time. I wish you the very best.
Vince.
November 10, 2012 at 15:31
If you do not reply by tonight, I will have to wait until later. As I’ve said, I don’t debate on Sunday.
November 6, 2012 at 17:59
Atheists “plow their way into conversations” (an interesting image, considering that the public is invited to comment on the blog posts in question) because religious people are constantly misrepresenting atheism, just as you have.
November 8, 2012 at 08:52
If it’s an invitation, such as comments here, it wouldn’t be plowing their way in now would it?
November 8, 2012 at 11:40
My point exactly; thanks.
November 8, 2012 at 21:34
Wow, what a way to generate blog traffic. You should bash atheists more often! (Just kidding). I am not a mind reader, so I cannot possibly know for a fact what your motivation for making this post was.. That’s one problem with internet debates, isn’t it? People start psycho-analyzing eachother, and think that a person’s motivations can be used to undermine their arguments. I think both sides are guilty of this. Out of curiosity, Max, what Theory of Truth do you hold to, if any?
November 9, 2012 at 12:22
Correspondance.
November 12, 2012 at 02:47
The Problem of Internet Atheists?
Come on Max!
You missed the forest for the trees.
Dialogue.
They arent ignoring you. And THATS GOOD!
Ask yourself why most AvT fora have 2 or 3 dozen atheists all bombarding one or two visiting theist ”chew toys”
These people are just as interested in God, the afterlife, the soul and the meaning of life as you are.
If they werent, you would be ignored. And if they thought their counter-apologetics were winning the argument, they wouldnt ban you. They would be chasing you down the street saying come back, dont leave.
http://www.rationalskepticism.org/download/file.php?avatar=g13_30812.jpg
November 13, 2012 at 09:57
Having had countless hundreds of online encounters with Atheists the claims of this article are, to me, as undeniable as the laws of thermodynamics. So I will just say this: as bad as internet Atheists are, I would rather go against 20 Atheists than against one (1) militant Theistic Evolutionist. E.g., Richard Dawkins or Eugenie Scott are child’s play (and far more ‘honest’) compared to Kenneth Miller or Francis Collins. Vaya con Dios …
April 4, 2013 at 19:23
We have similar concerns at Saints and Sceptics. The following articles attempt to get to explain what we call “McAtheism”:
http://e-n.org.uk/p-4971-McAtheism.htm
http://www.saintsandsceptics.org/the-mgonz-test/
http://www.saintsandsceptics.org/860/
April 4, 2013 at 19:26
I like McAtheism better than “Internet Atheists” lol
April 4, 2013 at 20:22
I respond to this goofy “McAtheism” idea on my blog:
http://dvdbach.blogspot.com/2013/04/all-atheism-is-mcatheism.html
April 8, 2013 at 12:30
I deal ever so often with Atheists and skeptics on the subject of the existence of God, Evolution, Science or faith.
I recognize very quickly just what kind of person I am dealing with. Normally the best Atheists that come off sounding fair and reasonable get pretty silly by the third or fourth round of question/answers. With some it immediately jumps to plain ole immaturish jabs, others it degrades into steamrolling-multiquestion pushbacks with a terrible attitude. Then there are those who just shot their best shot at me and it fell to the ground. I assume that such a shot worked on other Christians that respond in like-kind jabbing and have little knowledge of the Atheist worldview.
Then there are those who pretend to be the powerful Atheist answer-alls that eat Christians for lunch and spit out theists like used chew. I’ve had the opportunity to go a few round with several of them, all of which eventually succumbed to ad hom attacks, irrational argument, belligerent replies, self-promoting blow-hards who categorize themselves as ‘winners’ in all things logical. The irony cannot be more evident.
Occasionally I do meet with a skeptic that is simply asking for a reasonable answer; I attempt to give that person the best answer I can. Even when they become frustrated or illogical, I dont push back, I attempt to help them understand my point of view. Its not that I have the best answers or muster the best explanation out there, but I realize that weak and failing arguments are glossed over with human defense posturing and the shutting down of the mind. The Atheist in general has done little homework to learn the Christian side of things and instead they have depended upon parroting their New-Atheist spokesperson or quoting the latest jab from some other atheist debate.
Lastly the apostate, the supposed learned-atheist who has defected to the ‘logical’ side of the tracks and who believes the propaganda that the bible is errant are normally professional Christ-rejectors. Their arguments are in place as an auxiliary to deeper inward rejections that are not intellectual/evidential but emotional and emit the verbal scent of bitterness and hatred. Once I encounter the Apostate, I leave him to his chosen destiny.
April 13, 2013 at 15:16
I’ve interacted with atheists online, and I don’t think I’ve ever had a time where it was anything other than them yelling, calling me names, deliberately misrepresenting what I’ve said and a complete unwillingness to engage in a rational, civil discussion.
April 15, 2013 at 19:28
Where have I done those things? You’re interacting with me, aren’t you?
Trackbacks
November 2, 2012 at 11:04
November 3, 2012 at 15:33