JamesSager3 #fundie

JamesSager3 #fundie christianforums.com

The militant atheist is out to try to tear down Christianity. And while this is an obvious threat, they're headstrong attack is so forward that they're laying all the cards on the table. For instance, they're in such a forward attack mode that they try and present all their arguments so it is easy for a Christian to find their arguments, read them thoughtfully and come up with responses. Another great thing about butting heads with the militant atheist is that it is a great time to witness for Jesus. It can be tough to bring up the topic of Jesus in conversation with your average individual, but the militant atheist begs to bring up the discussion of God.

So, one thing that I've noticed a weak point in the atheist's arguments is that they need to explain everything everywhere in every time in order to even begin to argue that God does not exist. For if you can't explain everything everywhere in every time, God may have been the one doing it. The obvious examples to this are the origin of life and the origin of the universe. There is no explanation in science about the origin of life or the origin of the universe therefore as far as science knows, it could be in the realm of God. The Christian says to the atheist,"I know God created the universe. How do you think it was made?" The atheist says,"I do not know how the universe was made, but do you know how God is made? " The Christian says,"I do not need to know how God was made to have faith in him. You however need to be able to explain everything everywhere in every time before you can argue that God cannot exist."

It is like a corollary to the god of gaps theory. Wikipedia likes to play the god of gaps as a weakness of Christian faith when it is really a weakness in atheism.

70 comments

old comment by Illuminatalie

they need to explain everything everywhere in every time in order to even begin to argue that God does not exist. For if you can't explain everything everywhere in every time, God may have been the one doing it.
Cognitive dissonance filter activated. Now scanning environment...bleep bleep bleep.. environment scan completed, data would indicate that scientists are motivated not by honest interest to find out how things really work, but by desire to prove that there is no God, and in particular to make a fool out of James Sager. But they won't win because James has God on his side and in fact God comes over twice a week to play Guitar Hero.

old comment by

There is no explanation in science about the origin of life or the origin of the universe therefore as far as science knows, it could be in the realm of God.

There is no explanation in science about the origin of life or the origin of the universe therefore as far as science knows, it could be in the realm of a bunch of gods or a multiple string of them or a long succession of gods, each creating the next.

There is no explanation in science about the origin of life or the origin of the universe therefore as far as science knows, it could be in the realm of some god who no longer exists.

There is no explanation in science about the origin of life or the origin of the universe therefore as far as science knows, it could be in the realm of the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

Do fundies see how useless the so-called cosmological argument is?

old comment by Hazor

The same could be said of flying purple space monkeys.

The flying-purple-space-monkey-ian says to the a-flying-purple-space-monkey-ist,"I know flying purple space monkeys created the universe. How do you think it was made?" The a-flying-purple-space-monkey-ist says,"I do not know how the universe was made, but do you know how flying purple space monkeys were made?" The flying-purple-space-monkey-ian says,"I do not need to know how flying purple space monkeys were made to have faith in them. You however need to be able to explain everything everywhere in every time before you can argue that flying purple space monkeys cannot exist."

It also seems like a double standard. I don't need to know the details of the beginning of life or the universe in order to believe that a super natural being did not cause it. It's also worth nothing that there is a few theories as to the beginnings of life. You've zero theories as to the origin of God, so it seems like I'm on better ground, IMHO.

old comment by Horsefeathers

"The militant atheist is out to try to tear down Christianity."

I wouldn't know. I've never met one. I've run across a couple of atheists who were just as stark raving mad as some of you Christians though. Is that what you're referring to?

"And while this is an obvious threat, they're headstrong attack is so forward that they're laying all the cards on the table. For instance, they're in such a forward attack mode that they try and present all their arguments so it is easy for a Christian to find their arguments, read them thoughtfully and come up with responses."

That's how rational debate is supposed to work you idiot.

Cloaking your side's argument in inane gibberish about "Trinities" and "Holy Ghosts" or all that creationism bullshit is the wrong way to debate.

"Another great thing about butting heads with the militant atheist is that it is a great time to witness for Jesus. It can be tough to bring up the topic of Jesus in conversation with your average individual, but the militant atheist begs to bring up the discussion of God."

Witnessing to an atheist, "militant" or not, is probably going to be as fruitful as you might imagine.

"So, one thing that I've noticed a weak point in the atheist's arguments is that they need to explain everything everywhere in every time in order to even begin to argue that God does not exist."

Say what?

"For if you can't explain everything everywhere in every time, God may have been the one doing it."

Oh, good god. How fucking simple can you be? That's not an argument--that's a hell of a lot of typing to do just to say "Goddidit!"

"The obvious examples to this are the origin of life and the origin of the universe. There is no explanation in science about the origin of life or the origin of the universe therefore as far as science knows, it could be in the realm of God."

There's explanations and supporting evidence for both of those things being perfectly natural. Granted, it's still a bit early to say they've got either right but their attempts at answers are far better than "Goddidit!"

"The Christian says to the atheist,"I know God created the universe. How do you think it was made?""

I have a standard answer when the religious tell me, conclusively and absolutely, that they know their god did something which is:

No, you do not know it. You may think you know it and you may even believe it, but you do not know any such thing.

As far as what I "believe" about the origins of the universe, well, belief doesn't enter into it. I accept the current--or at least the most recent that I've heard--explanation. I accept it because a lot of very intelligent people who have spent a good portion of their lives both studying and gathering data for their explanation say that's what happened. If I asked nicely they'd even let me see their data. Not that I'd understand it, but it's there for anyone who wants to check it which is far more than can be said for your "evidence" of your god doing it.

"The atheist says,"I do not know how the universe was made, but do you know how God is made? " The Christian says,"I do not need to know how God was made to have faith in him. You however need to be able to explain everything everywhere in every time before you can argue that God cannot exist.""

I'm sure you think you've got some sort of iron clad reasoning going there, right? Head over to IIDB.org (freeratio.org now, apparently...) and try it out. Get your stopwatch out so you can time how long it takes them to bury you in data and reason.

"It is like a corollary to the god of gaps theory. Wikipedia likes to play the god of gaps as a weakness of Christian faith when it is really a weakness in atheism."

I believe the psychiatrists call this particular habit "projection".

old comment by Mrs. Antichrist

The militant atheist is out to try to tear down Christianity.

Most of us don't give a damn about Christianity or any other religion, as long as you don't try to force it on the rest of us via creating religiously inspired laws.

they try and present all their arguments so it is easy for a Christian to find their arguments, read them thoughtfully and come up with responses.

We present all of our arguments because we're not as lazy as creationists, who post one sentence replies that lack any backing evidence or copy and paste articles that have nothing to do with the topic at hand. We've already heard and debunked every counterpoint creationists have made, which is why we include all of that in there too in the hope that we won't have to deal with the same idiotic statements we heard the last time we argued with one of you wackjobs.

it is really a weakness in atheism.

Logic says otherwise, sweetpea.

old comment by Paler_Face

The militant atheist is out to try to tear down Christianity.

That's Christopher Hitchens, and he doesn't limit himself to christianity, but he goes after all religion.

And while this is an obvious threat, they're headstrong attack is so forward that they're laying all the cards on the table. For instance, they're in such a forward attack mode that they try and present all their arguments so it is easy for a Christian to find their arguments, read them thoughtfully and come up with responses

So, why doesn't any apologetic come up with good rebuttals for the atheist attacks? Could it be that the atheists are actually right?

Another great thing about butting heads with the militant atheist is that it is a great time to witness for Jesus. It can be tough to bring up the topic of Jesus in conversation with your average individual, but the militant atheist begs to bring up the discussion of God.

And then the atheist crushes your feeble Jeebus tales with his superior knowledge of your own bloody faith, and simple, cold, hard logic and reason.

The rest of fundy rant

The God of the gaps is a terrible argument. Even if a god somewhere does something, it's still unlikely to be your specific god.
Also, throughout the history of science, everything that was once contributed to a god, and that we now have a better understanding of, turned out to not be the work of a god. I think this trend will continue.

old comment by Syb

That there's also no evidence that God *doesn't* exist, which is basically what this boils down to, is not necessarily a horrible argument against people who say that any sort of religious belief is unacceptable. But in using it, you open up any religious belief as being equally acceptable. Whether it's the Christian God or the FSM or Allah or anything else; any of them could have done it. It's basically a defensive position, rather than an offensive position, which means trying to witness through it is fundamentally stupid.

I do love that this guy misses that the two people quoted (at least, wikis being wikis, right now) in Wikipedia's criticism section on the "god of the gaps" article, are BOTH CHRISTIANS.

old comment by Dr. Shrinker

Personally, I don't have to tear down Christianity. Once the light of reason shines on religious dogma, it crumbles to dust on its own. Of course, that same light tends to send superstitious cockroaches scuttling for the comforting darkness of shadows.

The beauty of science is that it grows. Scientifically speaking it is perfectly acceptable to say, "insufficient data." That is not an admission of failure, it is a statement of fact. It certainly doesn't mean that the data will always be insufficient.

By contrast, when religious fanatics are faced with questions that cannot be answered, they are free to make things up (a point you suggest to in your first paragraph). The answers you give do not have to be productive, they simply have to feel good. A perfect example is the idea that disease is caused by sin. For some people this answer wasn't good enough, and thus we have the germ theory (and the life saving remedies based on it).

Historically speaking, when people persisted in asking questions that were uncomfortable for the religious leaders, said religious leaders generally had the inquirer executed. Unfortunately for you, that option is not currently open in most of the civilized world. If religion is to survive, it will need to play by the rules of science and prove that it is worth something. If this post is the best you can do, then frankly, your side is in trouble.

old comment by Swede

Who's this militant atheist and how does he plan to tear down Christianity all by himself? James, why do you feel threatened by one atheist?

We just argue that there is no evidence for the existence of any gods, including yours. We'll just have to say that everything that used to be explained with the work of some god or other has since been explained by science. The origins of the Universe and life have not been fully explained yet, but there are plausible hypotheses and work in progress. You have to present evidence for the existence of your particular god, before we could start discussing whether your god is responsible or not. It could just as well be some other gods, ya know. We never said that God cannot exist, it's YOUR job to prove he does exist. Plus, if God can exist, so can Brahman and Shiva.