New Design!
|
|
Ok, finally… I was so close for so long. I have the new site layout pretty much finished (I think).
Let me know if you see some obvious mistakes when you’re clicking around, and let me know what you think of the redesign. If you are reading this through an RSS feed, come check out the site.
Now, as to not disappoint with a mere “Theme update” post, I’ll throw in a few quick thoughts about the following youtube video:
This guy’s name is Chad — youtube handle: “RationalResponder” and he’s a protege of Ray Comfort — and it shows.
He analyzes a question he hears from atheists that goes something like, “Do you actually believe that Jesus rose from the dead or that a guy lived in a fish for a few days?”
His 1, 2, switcheroo argument/tactic summarized:
1. Agree with the skeptic that these miraculous events are miraculous.
2. Claim that the skeptic misrepresents Christianity if he thinks that there is a naturalistic explanation for the miraculous events.
The question asked by the skeptic, somehow, is a misrepresentation of Christianity, because Christianity has always said that the supernatural was involved with these miracles!
Switcheroo: Can you give me one reason why God, the creator of the universe, wouldn’t be able to alter His creation in any way He sees fit?
First of all, I don’t know a single person who thinks that Christians believe that miracles happened via natural means. There can be misrepresentations of what Christians believe, but this is just not one I have ever come across.
Second, I’m not sure that Chad wants to claim this method of thinking in his daily life. Is he suggesting that he believes any and every supernatural claim ever made because, well, God could do anything? My guess is that he has a fair amount of skepticism to any number of supernatural claims that I might make off the top of my head. Like, God caused rocks in my backyard to levitate during my childhood as long as no one was observing them, for example.
Would Chad ask me why I believed that? — If he did, and I answered, “Well, you are misrepresenting my belief in rock-levitation by asking for a naturalistic cause — or, perhaps you can give me a reason why God, creator of the universe, wouldn’t be able to cause rocks to levitate?” do you think he’d be satisfied?
Let me know your thoughts on the new theme; and on Chad’s youtube video and what response you might take if he responded to you that way.
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_e.png?x-id=fe376486-9ba5-4c79-be52-5af13f5715dd)
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Global Atheist, Ã…sa Heuser. Ã…sa Heuser said: RT @GlobalAtheist: New Design! – http://galink.us/xapja/ #atheism [...]
I've seen Chads vids before, and none of them are particularly good. Your critique of his argument seem pretty solid to me.
Social comments and analytics for this post…
This post was mentioned on Twitter by GlobalAtheist: New Design! – http://galink.us/xapja/ #atheism…
As for your new theme: Thumbs up!
As for Chad's argument —
First, the very name of his argument sounds deceptive — One, Two, Switcheroo. Hmmm . . . .
:-D
That aside, the very fact that I would challenge his belief in bizarre incidents such as people coming to life after being dead three days or a person being reguritated three days after being trapped inside of a whale implies that I challenge the existence of his god.
By saying that, I think I only gave a more cumbersome version of what someone here has already said.
Chad's protest seem to actually be: You can't understand why we Christians are right because you assume there is no god.
But what hard nosed, fundamentalist Christians don't seem to understand is that both atheists and Christans have to start with certain assumptions in order to arrive at our various ways of thinking. The difference?
Generally speaking, the skeptic is either waiting (or looking) for evidence before diving off into credulity. Or the skeptic has verifiable evidence against a certain claim and thusly has reasonable doubts. So whatever the assumptions, a skeptics will tend to a bit of weight behind them.
However, believers are usually raised a children with their assumptions or have developed some emotional ties to their beliefs. Then after the fact, believers tend to prop their faith with "evidence" and "logic". So whatever assumptions the religious may appear as a good foundation for logic, but are often unfounded — and worse, unverifiable.
We haven't misrepresented Christianity at all.
Also, Chad's argument assumes an omnipotent god who cares about and is involved with his creation. If we atheists are wrong, the only other alternative isn't Jesus, or the God of Judaism. Why, we could end up being cast into Hades by a very pissed off Zeus!
Shame our point of view would probably go clean over Chad's head. Not because he couldn't comprehend– I don't mean to call him stupid. I only think he won't comprehend because he wouldn't stop to follow the implications. Maybe later down the road he'd think about it.
But doing so can wreck one's faith. Why, that's what eventually happened to me!
And I feel better off for it, too.
Why not just go with his super-natural theme. Ask him, so you believe in all super-natural thinks, like ghosts and spirits, Zodiac signs and numerology, etc…. He's finished as soon as he professes that God can only interact with his creation super-naturally. He only has faith and no other evidences. So His creator is not all powerful, right!
I think that the main point of the original argument is establishing that those events are extraordinary in nature and, therefore, require extraordinary evidence. It seems to me that his first point makes our case and we can then go forward and ask for the extraordinary evidence.
Another reason to bring up the argument is to ask the believer why he wouldn't believe in any miracle today. The question should be "If you believe that a man rose from the death 2000 years ago based on alleged witnesses accounts, why won't you believe that Zeus ate my homework last night?".
Also, he is shifting the burden of proof. He has to establish, not that the creator of the universe COULD do something, but that he actually did it.