Ya Just Can't Trust an Atheist!

[Lollipop King]

Perhaps God will still find some use for me?

And perhaps little green men will abduct me and take me away from here.

In the meantime... maybe you could ask me for help in this discussion? I'd be glad to give you some pointers... a few ideas, or lines of thought you could pursue to attack the argument I'm making here.

Just let me know.

Sure, and if you ever want some pointers on what reality is or what logic and reason means, let me know.

I can also help you with overcoming your stunted development.

I alread posted why I don't trust Christians.
Muslims...I don't trust them, either.

[Lollipop King]

The problems are so fundamental that it is difficult to critique.

Doesn't everyone hate this? When they encounter a post or OP that is so critically flawed and the person making the argument is so immersed in the belief, that its difficult to even consider starting to correct the post?

Thats a personal pet peeve of mine.

He's set up a situation wherre he thinks his beliefs will be justified and his idea that he's a thinker will be preserved.

He will avoid anything that threatens this situation.

He knows he cannot win a rational argument if he exposes his beliefs to criticism. What he does is turn the tables, atacknig the opponent, and avoids positioning himself on the subject, other than to declare that it's rational or too powerful or shit like that, and he interprets his evasive tactics as evidence of his superior mind.

It's like he's outside the rink taunting the fighters and preserving the insinuation that if he were to enter the rink he would beat the shit out of them all.
Meanwhile he finds ways to excuse himself from actually entering the rink. It's a win win situation.
A cowards victory.

It's simple, really.
As simple as he is.

[tentative]

Isn't it sad? Usually we see this in the religion forum. Someone who takes any objection to their outlandish claims as proof that they are right. It is the messianic complex in overdrive. The proof of their truth is to is to be "crucified" by those nasty non-believers. It is their whole justification. No amount of rationality, no logic, no common sense can sway such a person. There is no way to talk to someone who already knows how everything is. Shotgun will believe what he believes because he KNOWS. The rest of us poor delusional people would do better talking to the wall.

[Faust]

Ahhh. I have a better understanding, now, shotgun.

Yeah, the ability to deceive is either an attribute of certain animals or it is not. You seem to be saying that if God created the animals without evolution, then they are not deceptive, but if evolution obtains, then these same animals are deceptive.

Riiiight.

But in any event, you are claiming that people who believe in a theory have the same characteristics as that theory.

Which is, technically, insane.

Believing in Newton's theories does not make me grave, for instance. A belief in Einstein doesn't make me "relativistic" or as fast as the speed of light. Believing in Santa Claus doesn't make me more generous.

There are many ways in which animals adapt to their environments - a case can be made that humans are evolved for religion. But believeing that doesn't make me religious.

Also, to miss the fact that animals utilise camoflauge, for instance, is to miss a simple, observable fact - one that Billy Graham, the Pope, St Francis of Assisi and small children can see for themselves and do not consider controversial. You seem to be the only person on the planet who does. "Evolutionists" are not the only people who see this, in other words. It is an easily observed attribute of animals. Evolution or not. Everyone believes this.

[Lollipop King]

A real Christian on display.
Not the idealized bullshit these people fling around.

Funny.

Even Pen & Teller have more brains that this guy.
God bless America!!!
Thetruthof the everyday Christian.
They look trustworthy.
The Foxhole Manifesto.

Shotgun's family tree.

The God that wasn't there.

[Thiudreiks]

Shotgun,

I see what your essay was going for - or more so - was implying. Though, you seem to deny any possibility of what people are saying as replies to your essay.

You are telling many of the posters here that what they are saying is irrelevant, that they should critique your essay, that they didn't even read your essay.

Critique isn't always, "Bravo! Perfection! Genius! Yes, yes!" This has brought me to believe that this may be a joke on your part, but that people are not believing it to be one? I thought it was, but now I believe you are not joking.
You titled this, after all, "Ya Just Can't Trust an Atheist!" Your ways of trying to reason with, or trump what you call the common atheist would probably make the overall argument, or debate, or easy-way-to-know-that-an-atheist-is-not-worth-listening-to, worse.

There have been enough people replying to your essay who have been explaining further in-depth what I am saying, and all you give are irrelevant this, irrelevant that. Responses that show your essay to be weak, and so on, seem to be rejected by you completely. You cannot accept what anybody else is saying, yet you go on saying that they should provide statements outside of their own experiences and beliefs created and built by themselves and their environment. An argument that says you cannot trust the average atheist because he cannot think outside his own perceptions is pointless in this way, because when you are given statements outside of your perceptions, you deny them and call them irrelevant. It could be said for the common Christian, couldn't it? Oh wait, no, for that is limited to what I have defined as a common Christian in my experience, just as you with the idea of the common Atheist in your experience.

"...It is of humor that I foresee man viewing many branches...then screaming of blasphemy and madness. Of higher humor still is one that has me laughing into despairing highs, the riddle: is it not the madman who calls all else is mad, but also declares himself to be sane?" - The Damned speaking to The Saint in Tree of Branches Withered, from the chapter Madness and The Behemoth
(thought this might fit what I am trying to say about you finding so many comments irrelevant)

Mentioning something like "false beliefs" is not a good idea, I would think. Since when is a belief false? Since psychology started speaking of delusions? A belief applies to the believer. If they believe in something, they don't falsely believe. If somebody has a belief in something, it is a belief. Not true, not false. Maybe if you are speaking about somebody who says they are a believer in something, and are not truly. Then again, in that sort of situation, they wouldn't be believing at all.

The point of Christianity is not to be more right then the next man with a different belief. An Atheist doesn't believe in Gods and structured religion, should the Christian care? Should the Christian want to trump any argument or counter coming from one who doesn't believe? Shouldn't the Christian continue on with their god-sent moral values, ignoring an Atheist? In this case, trust wouldn't be a matter. Using a title like that is like having a conclusion pointing out how Atheists have poor arguments that you can pay no heed to. Even if their argument was strong and valid, a Christian should not lose faith, should they? Unless their belief is not as strong as a Christians belief should be?

Yes, I am sorry, all of these comments are based off of my own experience and situations in life, not somebody else's, or of some separate being outside of our reality, or of statistics. If I recommended, or took a quote from a book by some famous author or figure directed for/against your comments...would that make my point more valid? I am afraid not, because that sort of logical argument is known as a logical fallacy. It is like saying, "This guy said this, so it is more relevant than anything I say, or anything you say." There are many kinds of logical fallacies, and they do not help your argument when you use them.

[Mastriani]

Two simple points:

1. Not all atheists are God haters. Some of us, simply do the math, and as an impossibility reaches infinite calculations, we accept the obvious; that which defies any/all known Universal properties/principles must be self-induced fantasy.

2. "reality" is the human attempt at keeping perception in stasis. "reality" is a false perception individually created to safeguard the sensation, phenomenally, of "I, myself". See Baudrillard; those who slumber comfortably in stasis have never been part of Reality.

[shotgun]

Mr. Mastriani,

Despite how tired your philosophical statements here may be, they none-the-less fail to offer any counter to my article.

Perhaps you should read it before commenting.

Pay special attention to the first footnote.

In Christ

Shotgun

[Aidan_Mclaren]

Two simple points:

1. Not all atheists are God haters. Some of us, simply do the math, and as an impossibility reaches infinite calculations, we accept the obvious; that which defies any/all known Universal properties/principles must be self-induced fantasy.

2. "reality" is the human attempt at keeping perception in stasis. "reality" is a false perception individually created to safeguard the sensation, phenomenally, of "I, myself". See Baudrillard; those who slumber comfortably in stasis have never been part of Reality.

Why do I think most of you atheists don't believe in God because it will hinder your "will-to-power", rather than being irrational?

[shotgun]

Yes,

Given the Christian view of the world; unsaved men are driven by their quest for autonomy.

Any "light" that shines into that particular "darkness" will not be understood or accepted.

It is a laughable facade that I often find among a plurality of God-hating philosophers.

They all stand united against the Christian God in an attempt to maintain a semblance of personal autonomy.

[Aidan_Mclaren]

I'm sorry, shotgun, but I am as against Christianity as Atheism.

I'm against everything of this world.

[shotgun]

lol

I didn't suspect otherwise of you Aiden.

Thanks for being honest though.

[The Art of War]

Why do I think most of you atheists don't believe in God because it will hinder your "will-to-power", rather than being irrational?

Because you are wrong .

Shotgun, I challenge that you prove the world is real! I do not make such foolish claims. I claim that there is no way of knowing whether or not we are in the Matrix.

[shotgun]

If you can't know anything, then you cannot know what you do or do not claim.

You really should read my article Mr. Art, especially before trying to critique it.

Until you do, your challenges, are nothing more than computer signals created by your robot masters. Right?

[Aidan_Mclaren]

Because you are wrong

Because you're an idiot who can't argue back.

[Mastriani]

Mr. Mastriani,

Despite how tired your philosophical statements here may be, they none-the-less fail to offer any counter to my article.

Perhaps you should read it before commenting.

Pay special attention to the first footnote.

In Christ

Shotgun

Actually, I did read your post. Your article is a monstrously pointless attempt to bottle any/all atheists in the same container. Being atheist does not mean "hates God". It means "does not find sufficient cause to believe".

If your certainty had not blinded you, it would have been apparent that that was the point of my reply to your less than objective redundancy of other's posts; just as you can't paint all Christians with one brush, neither do all atheists fit a single mold.

If you can't acknowledge that simple point, your lack of objectivity will obviate any point you attempt to make, well intended or not.

As far as my "tired philosophical statements", you have zero ground to disprove what was stated by me. If you are going to attempt higher philosophical ground, then work on narrowing your claims so that you can prove your position.

As it stands, you generalised to the point of saying nothing, and are claiming wiffs of smoke to be concrete based purely upon "belief".

[shotgun]

Settle down...go back.. and read the first footnote.

After you do that, then perhaps you can try and stay consistent with your friendly comments above.

If you are "different" than the other God-haters here, perhaps you can answer my arguments; as of now, not a SINGLE one has even attempted to do so.

Also...if you go back and actually read my article...(not just skim down through it...) you'll see that I have specifically written this article for the metaphysical naturalist.

You cannot claim to have read my article, and missed that point...especially since I've made that fact explicit many times in the resulting disucssion.

As a metaphysical naturalist, the critiques in my article are very relevant to you.

Answer them, or shut up. (Remember the phrase, step up or shut up...?)

Seriously...insults and contentious language abound in this thread, but...as of yet, no materialistic naturalist has attempted to demonstrate that their own sense perceptions are indeed firm foundations.

Perhaps you can suceed where everyone else has either failed, or not even tried?

I do hope you at least try, since I was looking for someone to really attempt to counter-the arguments I've made here.

God bless you in your effort, should you decide to make it.

-
Shot

[humegotitright]

Shotgun,

I apologize in advance if my points have been raised, I've read through your OP but sadly time is short so I haven't read the rest of the thread. Anyway...

Now your second conclusion,

2. That they cannot know the difference between true perceptions and false ones without begging the question

immediately make your first conclusion,

I have shown 1. that it is unlikely they are telling the truth

false. This is because that if atheists cannot differentiate between true and false perceptions, and cannot make valid assumptions based on these, then neither can theists.

As you say,

The point is, our perceptions; our empirical observations, often are plain wrong about reality.

now I'll grant this. It is true we often see things which are not a true reflection of reality. But this is true of all humans, atheists and theists alike. So if we are to conclude from we cannot tell which observations are true or false, then it must be that all humans cannot tell which observations are true or false. And from this, we can conclude that you cannot reliably claim that it is likely that atheists are lying, because you cannot know this!

Now I know you will want to claim that God would not allow you and other Christians to fall into this trap, He would ensure that you can differentiate between your perceptions. But again this relies on knowing that God would not deceive you, which you cannot.

Also your third conclusions,

3. Even if they could, they could not make valid assumptions based on these experiences (even if they were true!)

Again I'll grant you this, but you have to show why it doesn't also apply to theists, without reference to experience. Now clearly you cannot do this, so if it holds for atheists, it also holds for theists.

All in all, you are right. I, nor anyone else, can disprove Christianity, Judaism or any other religions. But equally you, nor anyone else, can prove it. Based on your conclusions, (which ironically you cannot prove, nor I disprove) everything remains a theory, neither true nor false, but possible.

[Mastriani]

Shotgun,

Although I realise that you have tried to make use of a Humeian dialectic to prove your point, it fails to have the teeth you quite intend.

Mathematics and philosophy both operate, at least in initial premises, upon syntactic accuracy. Obviously, anything can become distorted by less than disciplined individuals. But, again, you can't paint all with the same broad brush.

There is a field of study which takes perception out of the surreal and far into the concrete ... although we don't have the "why" of it, as of yet, we do know that it is actual; quantum mechanics.

Perception can/does change particle behavior. It is the simple act of a perceiving observer that physically changes a Universal parameter.

Are you somewhat correct in your assertions? Yes, to greater or lesser degrees, dependent upon the objectivity of the observer. How do we know the level of objectivity of an observer in any instance? By the number of repetitions of that observer in creating consistent results.

Consistency defeats the perspective that ceteris paribus is the Universal Law, especially under the guise that nothing can be objective. If that were the case, we'd still be hunting great monsters with pointy sticks because in your scenario, learning leads to the same end result; distorted perception.

Look into quantum mechanics, much like God, it is something that cannot be fully understood.

[Cyrene]

a case can be made that humans are evolved for religion.

A case could be made, but it'd be really really weak and basically nonsensical. A much stronger and much more powerful arguement which could be made is that people are religious as a byproduct of other adaptations. Its a subtle difference i guess, but massively important.

Anyway as to this thread. It just demonstrates an unblinking, unwavering faith immune to rational arguement. It becomes irrational to try and convince them otherwise, at some point. Looking at the OP, that was a long time ago.

[Thiudreiks]

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).

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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).

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.

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?)

(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?

(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.

(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.

(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.

[shotgun]

I'm not going to put a lot of effort into this, but...Mr. Thiud wrote a lot so...I figure I owe him at least an off the top of my head response.

His first point is based on a fundamentally flawed line of logic. To exemplify this, consider his suggestion:

This in turn begins to make this essay falter, because the reader will come to believe that you are an arrogant/ignorant person yourself.

My essay would "falter" he says, not based on any merit of the arguments, but because of the way my critics would perceive certain of my character traits. This is a classic example of an insinuated ad hominem.

Mr. Thiud, please save your critiques of my rhetorical ability for someone who might actually care to hear them.

You give me more of your irrelevant and unwanted advice in this point:

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.

You seem not to notice that in my essay, I specifically narrowed the scope of my discussion down to the Atheists that seek to have "discussions" with Christians via online chatrooms and forums. These people (much like yourself no doubt) tend to view themselves as anti-Christian apologists. I deal with such people on a daily basis, and this article is written with them in mind.

As for dealing with "Atheism" as a concept...I feel qualified to for such a task ever since reading the likes of George H. Smith, Bertrand Russell, Michael Onfrey, Ayn Rand, and others. I think I have a pretty good grasp on the concepts involved in the religion. (Also, I've recently been working my way through Richard Carrier's book "Sense and Goodness without God.")

As it is, up to this point in your critique, you've yet to supply anything worthwhile.

You finally try leveling a counter argument though, when you say this:

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.

Your horrible mischaracterization (and apparent ignorance) of my argument aside, this is not a coherent critique.

I suppose I would be right in re-stating it thus:

"Shotgun, you say Atheists cannot use their personal experiences, so you can't either!"

This seems to be a fair construction of the argument you are trying to make in the above quoted paragraph. This is a charge that I've already answered repeatedly here, and I won’t do so again. If you failed to grasp my argument the first 4 times, I doubt you'll get it on the 5th go round.

I suggest getting rid of this entire opening if you want to be taken seriously

Oh please...save your dramatic rhetoric for the young Christians you no doubt like to bully around. Take me seriously or not...the critiques I've presented here are very serious, indeed they savage the entire Atheist world and life view. The questions I've raised need to be answered...sticking your fingers in your ears and humming really loud doesn't count.

Reading down through the rest of your article just demonstrates more and more of your complete ignorance of my actual argument.

Here...I will one last time sum this up for you...because you sir, are making the exact same mistake as the other God-haters here are.

Christians...(because of our epistemology and metaphysics) can consistently make comments, and allusions about their own personal experience!

Atheists, because of their epistemology and metaphysical (or lack thereof) views...cannot.

Therefore...due to the reasons I stated, my statements about the Atheist, and the Atheist's personal experience, are not applicable to the Christian.

Thanks.

I'm just going to stop for now...I don't think you guys are willing to "get" it.

[Thiudreiks]

I'm not going to put a lot of effort into this, but...Mr. Thiud wrote a lot so...I figure I owe him at least an off the top of my head response.

His first point is based on a fundamentally flawed line of logic. To exemplify this, consider his suggestion:

Shotgun, I was merely giving a critique of your essay. From the view of myself, and other potential readers. Though you had then critiqued my critique? You seemed to continually ask for comments/critique on your essay, so I had. Your response seems to quickly become aggressive though? You then replied to my critique as if to an audience other than me, as if to make a strange argument claiming that my critique should be dismissed by others. The critique is of your essay, if you do not find it constructive, you can dismiss it.

You seem not to notice that in my essay, I specifically narrowed the scope of my discussion down to the Atheists that seek to have "discussions" with Christians via online chatrooms and forums.

Your essay did not address this.

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!

Simple Allusions:

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!

Nowhere in the actual essay did it say that the essay itself was focused upon Atheists found in online chatrooms, forums, etc. that seem to only argue to debase the idea of Christianity or a God in general. You do mention here about the Atheists you may run across in a chatroom/forum, though the essays introduction does not say it is only focused upon them. You may have stated it later in this topic, though your essay does not point it out. I was just pointing out that the essay should state your means, and not a post you had later alone. Sorry for the miscommunication, as I thought you did mean it towards Atheists discussed with by those means, just the essay itself does not clearly state the focus upon them.

As for dealing with "Atheism" as a concept...I feel qualified to for such a task ever since reading the likes of George H. Smith, Bertrand Russell, Michael Onfrey, Ayn Rand, and others. I think I have a pretty good grasp on the concepts involved in the religion. (Also, I've recently been working my way through Richard Carrier's book "Sense and Goodness without God.")

As it is, up to this point in your critique, you've yet to supply anything worthwhile.

I was not questioning your ability or qualifications here, shotgun. If you feel that the reader of your essay should know this, than you may state resources and also use examples from references by those authors.

I suggest getting rid of this entire opening if you want to be taken seriously

Oh please...save your dramatic rhetoric for the young Christians you no doubt like to bully around. Take me seriously or not...the critiques I've presented here are very serious, indeed they savage the entire Atheist world and life view. The questions I've raised need to be answered...sticking your fingers in your ears and humming really loud doesn't count.

Shotgun, a critique is not a personal attack on the writer. It is a commentary on the essay. I mentioned taking out the opening due to it quickly attacking Atheistic ideas/arguments, but most of all, Atheists themselves by insulting them. An opening to an essay like this would give off a complete disrespect for those that are not Christian. And I do know you meant to narrow it on a specific type of Atheist, though your essay does not state it, so it comes off as more a generalization of all Atheists. Once again, Shotgun, this was a critique of the essay. No need to be offended or aggressive, as this is all in good means towards the essay.

I'm just going to stop for now...I don't think you guys are willing to "get" it.

The point of an essay is for the reader to "get" it, and to understand what you are saying. If you are saying that the reader is not willing to "get" it, then the essay has failed in its goal. When a writer gives someone his work to be critiqued, he does not just ignore them when they do not understand his work and say "You are not willing to get it! Your critique shall not be heard." You had posted this for commentary/critique, that does not mean you posted it for debate and who is right or wrong. You should not post in this forum if that was your goal, as I am sorry, I was just giving critique and commentary.

[Jim Profit]

There's no such thing as an athiest. Only a self-deluding agonostic.

I have an athiest uncle, and I uttered some Summerian tongue at him and claimed I put a curse on him. He got all pissy. "Why would you do that?!"

I was like "What do you care? You're an athiest lol!"

The best he could comeup with is "it's the principle of the thing". Well if there is no magick, then there is no principle.

It's funny how we Satanists are better athiests then athiests themselves. Despite how alot of us don't disbelieve in God, merely are more interested in our own supernatural potential.

[shotgun]

Jim, it's ashame, but I tend to get along great with Satanists. (they are more consistent than the norm.)

To thad...

Quit crying... also, if you have an issue with my arguments, then state it. I could care less about you as a person (at this point) or how you feel, or how my post made you feel, or how it might "seem" to you, or any of that other worthless psychoanalysing on your part.

State my argument in a syllogism, then critique the syllogism to show how it is wrong.

If you don't want to do that, (or some other equally effective critique) then I'm not really interested in what you have to say.