shotgun wrote:I always get a kick out of the Atheists god-haters who try to have discussions with Christians. (1)
They're so arrogant in their unbelief and ignorance! This attitude of theirs usually manifests itself online via contentious debates in chatrooms, or on discussion forums. (2)
After wading through all the garbage that most of them consider argumentation, (which in reality means: slanderous statements, and insults about your mom) the Christian at some point in the discussion, begins to hear actual objections raised by the Atheist.
On the whole, these objections are nothing more than an allusion to his or her personal experience.
This is a bad idea in any essay, to discredit an entire category of people by insulting them. This in turn begins to make this essay falter, because the reader will come to believe that you are an arrogant/ignorant person yourself. You are also seeming to, in turn, say that all Atheists are the same in using slanderous statements claiming you are stupid, and use "insults about your mom". This makes the introduction even worse as it seems to be based of the personality of online flamers, and teenagers that you have encountered probably, instead of Atheism at hand.
Also, saying that the way they make their point is only based upon his/her personal experience completely discredits the rest of your essay since you have just explained how you see Atheists is how the majority of Atheists are, and possibly how you view all Atheists, thus saying that your argument is as good as theirs. I suggest getting rid of this entire opening if you want to be taken seriously by those who are Atheist, and by those who are Christian (from the essay, it seems you only talk about Christianity vs. Atheism, and the constant "you (the Christian)" statements show that this is directed toward a fellow Christian, though none-the-less, this can in ways be directed towards Atheists since they are the main focus of your article).
shotgun wrote:This could be a simple, on the surface allusion, such as: I know some Christians are ignorant and close minded, because there is this girl in my biology class; and SHE is a Christian, as well as ignorant and close minded!
Once again, due to your opening, you just claimed the same thing of Atheists as this example claims of Christians. Not good, not good. Maybe take this out too? I remember you saying something later within this topic about how your essay is about the common atheist someone may encounter who has weak arguments because they use personal attacks more than that of debate towards the subject itself. I believe
you said that, not 100% sure, but if this is than you would want to state this in your essay early on by mentioning that, else the subject at hand seems to be more so that ALL Atheists are "arrogant" and "ignorant" as you said. Pick a reason for the essay, and state it, and stick to it without letting personal outlook against those you have debated with who were less-likable Atheists.
shotgun wrote:In this article, I will show why Christians should never let an Atheist get away with alluding to personal experience (of any kind) to try and win an argument!
Like I said, this goes with the bad intro as you mix your own personal view of how you see an Atheist person, and not the thoughts of an Atheist towards religion. This causes you to say that "In this article, I will show why Christians should never let an Atheist get away with what I am doing right now." This is how the reader will take your statement if you let your sentences clearly show how you generalize Atheists the same way you claim them to be towards Christians.
shotgun wrote:Generally speaking today, most of the contentious, God-hating, Atheists that you will run across in a chatroom or forum, are metaphysical naturalists. They bow knee to their god of chaos, and worship at the alter of evolution!
Once again, you are letting the article falter. Now you are speaking of Atheists as "God-hating" and "contentious". Maybe just change the word "most" into "some", because using that would be more understandable to the reader, and less offensive to somebody who is Atheist (or any other religion than Christianity for that matter, as you are making Christianity seeming to be the only possible conclusion, and Atheist as the only other type of thinker). I do not know if "God of Chaos" makes much sense here, what are you saying? The claim at the end of this statement about Atheists "worshiping" an evolution theory may be a problem, as an Atheist is not defined as always being a believer in evolution.
shotgun wrote:Before you allow such a person to make arguments based on his or her personal experience, simply point out to them, that given the truth of their evolutionary views, you (the Christian) have no reason to assume that they are telling the truth!
I am starting to see your pattern. Using your argument, anybody can believe they would win an argument. Any argument you make will be based upon your personal experience. You are saying that a good counter to any argument is "Your belief is not true. Ha." You are using a conclusion, and not a premise here. An essay should make its body use premise after premise, before making a conclusion that their views are always wrong, and that the Christian's are true.
shotgun wrote:The strongest, smartest, and most cunning creatures survive, right? Suppose the cheetah, camouflages herself in the surrounding environment, so that she can more easily attack the nearby Gazelle? What is this, but a deception on the part of the Cheetah? It's ok over here Gazelle; it is safe; there is no danger!
Utilizing deception as a means to get ahead is nothing new to this world, especially if you believe in Evolution.
A Cheetah does not choose
to be camouflaged. This would be like confusing how hunting is for a Cheetah, and how hunting is for a human. A human may wear camouflage when hunting, to blend in and be deceptive as you say. A Cheetah doesn't put its coat on/off. This then discredits the argument about the Cheetah using deception. Then your italicized statement doesn't even connect with that paragraph as you then imply it is wearing camouflage to keep safe, when your paragraph just claimed it is wearing camouflage to catch prey more easily. As a result, the paragraph is completely irrelevant for the statement about utilizing deception to get ahead, as the Cheetah didn't choose to be deceiving, and the Cheetah needs to eat to survive, and does not gain anything else. If you believe it does, you may want to clarify that, and why they should believe your statement.
To say that anybody who believes in evolution especially
knows about utilizing deception, this does not make any sense. Evolution does not claim anything about deception, were you thinking of adaptation? If you were, you should state how you view the idea of evolutionary adaptation to an environment for survival as being the same as deception.
shotgun wrote:I have heard a particular argument many times from Atheists, that goes something like this:
Preachers just want to get your money, and churches are out to rob you!
When I ask them which particular denomination has robbery as a foundational creed, they always decline to answer. I usually follow it up with another question.
Well, perhaps then, you can tell me the name of this particular church, so that we can see if they need to be disciplined by their denomination?
They either say that they cant remember the name, or that it was an independent church, acting on its own; specifically a church that is not listed in the phone book, nor has its own website.
How dang convenient right?
So, in this particular case, the God-hater is lying about his or her experience, in order to make the argument: Churches just want to get your money. They expect you to grant to them the truth of their personal experience here.
Sorry, I aint that kind! Especially given a belief in evolution, lying would be a prudent way to further a claim!
This entire section of your essay has become useless, because once again, you are replacing "Atheist" with "God-hater", showing that in your personal experience, all Atheists are God-haters. I know, a small thing, but simple replacement would be a good fix. Also on that, claiming that they are a God-hater because they claim churches stealing money does not match up. Stating that the church steals your money does not mean anything directed towards God, but more so the men/women who run the churches.
Then once again you go into a statement claiming that believers in evolution lie to further their claims. This statement had no previous argument (which would be weak anyways, as any claim about an entire category of believers in an idea as people who lie to further their claims is weak) pointing in the direction of them being liars, unless it was originally your claim about deception, which has already been addressed.
shotgun wrote:Suppose though, that they can prove that they are not lying?
What if they try and argue based on more generally accepted experiences?
For example, I hear this argument all the time:
Christianity was the bloodiest religion ever. More people died from Christianity, than any other religion! Look at the Crusades or the Witch Trials!
No Christian would deny the reality of the Crusades or the witch trials. The unbeliever in this case, is appealing to experiences that none of us have ever experienced, but all present (generally) accept as actually having taken place.
This is a very strange argument, not the argument you hear all the time, but more so your statement about it. You are saying that their argument references something that happened in history, which they were not alive during. How is this a relevant statement to make about their argument? By saying they are presenting events that are generally accepted as happening, are you saying that these events are incorrect? I'm just not clear what is going on here, as your counter simply being "none of us were alive during that" or "that is just generally accepted as happening in the past" wouldn't be an argument at all, but simply a claim with no premise.
shotgun wrote:Or suppose the God-hater makes the argument, Noahs Flood was impossible because there isn't nearly enough water on Earth to cover the entire planet!
There are two major problems with this, and I'll point them out.
Problem 1: Perceptual foundations are incoherent, and useless to the unbeliever!
We all know that at times, our perceptions are false.
I'm sure if God has some woman in mind for me to fall in love with the moment I first see her, I'll probably see little hearts floating around my own head for an hour or so afterward!
The guy who takes a hit of acid thinks spiders are crawling all over him! The pilgrims, looked to the west, and saw far blue mountains. Do you think they were disappointed when they reached those mountains and found out that they were really not blue after-all?
The point is, our perceptions; our empirical observations, often are plain wrong about reality.
In order to determine which of our perceptions are real, and which are mere hallucinations; we have to come up with some standard. But, this poses a problem doesn't it? To establish a standard, you have to rely on the very empirical experiences that you are trying to provide a standard for in the first place!
The unbeliever has no way of providing a valid criteria for his or her own experiences, without begging the question, or being completely arbitrary. Because of this, no Christian should grant to them, the validity of their own sense perceptions! If the unbeliever cannot tell which of his experiences are true, and which are false, then the Christian should not grant them this right.
Make them earn it! (4)
Problem 2: Imprisoned by experience!
Even if I were nice enough to grant the unbelieving God-haters, the validity of their own sense perceptions; they still have the problem of coming up with coherent statements based off of these perceptions.
Lets say that we grant them, that they really are seeing a piece of white chalk. How do you get from THAT perception, to an interesting statement like, I love you, or, Christianity is the bloodiest religion ever?
This section here is screaming that the Atheist does not have a valid argument since reality is questionable. You are saying all experiences are questionable, and should be assumed false unless they have evidence of their reality...being true? This argument basically then claims the same of the Christian, and yourself, for we are all humans that have these realities you say we can not necessarily prove true, due to anything being a hallucination. The Atheist could easily turn this argument around and say the same of you, of why should they then grant you the validity of your own sense or perception?
This entire section also helps push an Atheists argument if they use everything you just said here, and then speak about how you are to know if an invisible supreme being exists, when you cannot even prove the reality you have come to believe by your own perception? Far too flawed of an argument here.
shotgun wrote:The unbeliever would perhaps try to use deductive reasoning (5).
The classic deductive example would be:
Socrates is a man
All men are mortal.
Socrates is mortal!
But you see, here, in order for this to be valid, we have to know that ALL men are mortal! Unless the God-hater has personally experienced that ALL men are mortal, then he or she cannot make this argument! They can never know that all men are mortal, until they themselves die! (But then, they wouldn't be around to argue anymore!)
So, they cannot utilize deductive inferences in order to make statements based on their experiences.
A mortal is human, and "man" is a label we give to a male human. Are you trying to say that someone using that argument cannot possibly KNOW that all male humans are humans? Your argument would be the same as saying:
Rachel is a woman.
All women are human.
Rachel is a human!
Then to say that this argument is incorrect since you cannot know that ALL women are human. That would be, once again, a counter with no premise. They would present an argument, and you would simply say "That doesn't work, you can't know EVERYTHING" An Atheist could say the same to you (a Christian), that you cannot KNOW God is real, and this would help their argument more. They would be stating something of truth, while you stating a belief. A belief is not the same as truth, or knowledge, but can be proven so, depending on how you view truth, as so far, I am not sure of when you see something as truth, since you have discredited personal experience, reality, and forms of reasoning. Your arguments seem to get stranger, and presented in odder ways as I go on.
shotgun wrote:Suppose they try using inductive inferences instead?
Every crow I have seen so far, was black, therefore, the next crow I see, will very probably be black.
Unfortunately the unbeliever cannot show that the required assumption here is certain, or even probably true! (6)
How is it improbable that the next crow will be black? After using the crow statement, you then basically claim that "It is impossible that it is probable." It would make sense for them to see it as probable, since every crow they had seen was black, they have no reason to say the next one will be of a color they have not witnessed. You are saying that they have NO reason to say that the next crow they see will most likely be black. This isn't an argument again, but instead, is a statement by you saying that an Atheist doesn't have the right to use any "inductive inference" to claim the probability of something, since you simply used a general example instead of one relating to you (a Christian).
shotgun wrote:IN CONCLUSION:
Christians! Dont EVER allow a God-hating Atheist to appeal to his or her own experiences in an attempt to validate an argument!
I have shown 1. that it is unlikely they are telling the truth; 2. That they cannot know the difference between true perceptions and false ones without begging the question; 3. Even if they could, they could not make valid assumptions based on these experiences (even if they were true!)
You just said that nobody can trust their own experiences, because even if they were true, "they could not make valid assumptions based on these experiences". This means the same to you. Does this mean that a lack of evidence against, is the same as evidence for? Your essay claims that Atheists will always be wrong since they cannot trust their own experiences, and if they were true, could still not be used to make a valid argument. What would then? Nothing? More than one persons experience? With your argument, that wouldn't matter. You are discrediting the possibility of anything being true with this argument, even God, by saying that everything is questionable. This makes the belief of Christianity questionable as a result. A pointless double-edged sword.
shotgun wrote:Don't let them bog you down in discussions about the nature of thermodynamics, or textual criticism. Cut them off at the knees, and show them the foolishness of their own God-hating philosophy! Show them that it cannot stand!
This is after-all, what were commanded to do!
We demolish arguments and every pretension that sets itself up against the knowledge of God, and we take captive every thought to make it obedient to Christ. 2nd Corinthians 10:5
You already showed earlier that you can't even trust the Bible as a reference, when you spoke about reality and used the example of Noah's Ark being questionable in understanding by the people. Your quote here would be of a Christian saying that Christians are supposed to put down all arguments against God, and to be utterly for God. Word from God in the Bible is more so truth than word from a Christian in your Bible (though many religions have a form of the old testament, with Noah, that are not Christian. This parentheses has no meaning here I guess, just felt like commenting), and using your quote from the Apostle Paul does not help. It is the same as saying "Paul knows truth, he knows God, he is in the Bible, so he is always right, and he says this:" isn't it?
Even so, he isn't saying "We shall" like the commandments, but is making an observation on how Christians are, isn't he? In no way do I see him "commanding" to do anything, like you claim, and if he was commanding, he isn't the God of Christianity, so how would he be in a position to command people without being seen as a king of people, worshiped like a false God?
(also, what ever happened to Christianity and acceptance? As in, accepting when one doesn't believe in their own religion, and treating an "unbeliever", or fellow man, as he would himself?)
shotgun wrote:(1) If youre an Atheist reading this stop crying, I know you dont think you believe in a god and therefore want to argue that you cannot possibly hate Him. Sorry to burst your bubble, but you DO believe in God. It is not, however, the purpose of this particular blog to prove it.
Your statement claims that all Atheists are Christian, as when you say God, I assume you mean in the Christian sense. But this might imply that you see any person as a believer in Christianity, and if they are of a different religion, they are lying like Atheists and actually believe in Christianity. If you are not saying this, then why would all Atheists believe in Christianity but deny it? Or why would Atheists deny belief in anything, but truly believe in Christianity specifically, over all other religions? This statement is an overall bad statement. Once again you are insulting someone who does not believe in Christianity, specifically Atheists, with your first sentence.
It would be the same as an Atheist claiming that all believers of Christianity really are Atheist. Making a statement so incredibly grand as this would need backing up, instead of a simple "I'm saying this in this essay, though I will not prove it in this essay since this article isn't about that." Why mention it if this essay has nothing to do with it?
shotgun wrote:(2) Unfortunately, some Christians respond in like manner, only serving to agitate the situation.
(3) Again, if youre an Atheist reading this, stop crying! Im using the term evolution here to describe the broad overarching system of thought, including gradual change through time, coupled with natural selection etc. I know that you think youre an expert when it comes to the theory of Evolution, and I know that you greatly desire to discuss the particulars of this false myth. Unfortunately, such a semantic argument is irrelevant for the case Im making here. For the purposes of this blog, Evolution involves all the particulars of your false myth, from the big bang, to complex life popping up out of mud puddles!
Once again, you are claiming that all Atheists are believers in evolution, and you should revise this. You could just mention, as you seem to be saying in the long run, that " To Atheists who reference theory on Evolution, that is a belief. As is Christianity too, but Evolution is a false belief. Stop talking about your false belief, since it doesn't help against the almighty true belief of God." It would have the same meaning that your paragraph stated. As for "serving to agitate the situation", if somebody kept insulting you because you do not believe in their belief would be agitating, wouldn't it? As in, what you are doing, by using more insults than actual arguments.
shotgun wrote:(4) That is not the end of their problems either. Even if we grant them the ability to make valid distinctions between what is real, and what is hallucination, they still have to provide a criteria for judging between the different perceptions themselves. They must give an account for the random particulars of their experience, and provide some way of classing these experiences together in a meaningful way. Their brains also must form abstract concepts based off of the empirical data provided by the eye. The unbeliever has to give an account of how sense perceptions are imputed to the brain in such a way that will form an abstract concept! All of these objections can get pretty philosophical and abstract, and so I'll only briefly mention them here in this footnote.
Just scroll up to my critiques on your arguments about perception of reality being questionable, as it applies to this too.
shotgun wrote:(5) Deductive reasoning is moving from a universal truth, to a particular truth.
(6) Inductive reasoning is moving from a particular truth to a universal one. The classic Christian argument from induction is well known by many. I have also recently written a blog on it as well, so, I'll not comment further on it here.
It is usually a mistake to tell someone that you will not further explain things in your essay, but that they should go to your blog to see what you mean about something. The article is overall incomplete in this way. As for my critiques on your views of inductive and deductive reasoning, I made my comments when you first introduced them in your essay =P
Overall, seeing this becoming a serious essay would need extreme revisions. Otherwise, it looks to be a scrapper to me. Looking forward to how you would apply my critiquing of your comments from a readers stand point. =) And I know this is a long post, but it is because I am having an in-depth critique, and I thought I would have minor comments at first, but there would be so much need for revision and re-thinking of premise after premise, that it might as well be scrapped, and started over. I have come to understand why there are so many negative comments towards you and your essay, but that does not mean you should cast them aside as if they never read it.