Dishonest Apologetics

[wasmit]

And not the least of that Christian evidence is the fact that people who claimed to be eyewitnesses to the teachings and workings of God Incarnate allowed themselves to be brutally persecuted and often killed rather than recant that eyewitness testimony. Where is the logic in such behavior, if they had just made it up?

How do you know that the people that claimed to be eyewitnesses were offered the proposition “recant your testimony and be set free, or be killed”, and were not just killed because they were part of an unpopular minority?

For example, during the graet fire of rome in 64ad, it seems likely that the christians were killed as scapegoats to appease the populace, and their words while they were being tortured were ignored.

 

[VociMike]

How do you know that the people that claimed to be eyewitnesses were offered the proposition “recant your testimony and be set free, or be killed”, and were not just killed because they were part of an unpopular minority?

For example, during the graet fire of rome in 64ad, it seems likely that the christians were killed as scapegoats to appease the populace, and their words while they were being tortured were ignored.

I’d tell you to read the many accounts, but I think you’d find reasons not to believe them.

 

[wxboss]

I respectfully disagree with your statement that the ability of humans to create is strong evidence of God. If God does not exist, it seems very plausible that we evolved to the level of intelligence that allows us to do things like create. And while you don’t see other animals building cars or making computers, there are animals who create things (dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1180052/Karta-ingenious-orangutan-escaped-cage-short-circuiting-electric-fence-stick.html).

I’ll have to respectfully disagree also. While Karta did show a great deal of ingenuity, it wasn’t in the act of creating anything but in the act of manipulating what was already created. It is true that this was remarkable on her part, but what would have been far more remarkable would be the act of her actually designing the system herself.

But there is something more fundamental here. An animal which is free by nature being kept in an unnatural environment. She is portrayed in that article as an intelligent escapee when in fact she is simply attempting to regain what she knows is natural to her - her freedom and wildness. She is trying to escape the trappings of technology in order to live the life she knows she was born to live. It’s a pretty strong statement against this day and age when we (speaking of mankind) willingly enslave ourselves to technology and allow it to think and control us while Karta has to be kept in a similar environment by brute force. It is quite possible that Karta is smarter than we thought - that is if we really ever thought about it.

 

[anEvilAtheist]

To use invalid arguments assuming you know they are invalid I take it?
Hmm… interesting question. On the one hand, I say yes because it may get them on the spiritual path to God where they will eventually come across good arguments. However, I dont think it is right to start someone off using an argument that you clearly know is false. The truth is enough.

Thanks for your honesty. The question isn’t necessarily as easy as some people think it is. On the one hand they could realize the right reasons later on. On the other hand, their beliefs will be much less secure and they could easily revert to their previous beliefs. Personally though, I think it’s best to try to give people only the arguments you personally think work. If you give someone a bad argument and they realize why it doesn’t work and you’re unable to defend against their objection, it might make them less likely to trust you when you make other arguments. Also, I just generally believe in being as upfront with people as possible.

As for Pascal’s wager and the disrespect paid to God by coming to him through it… i would disagree. So many have been saved because our Lord stooped to conquer. I feel like I could turn to most Christians who dont like pascals wager and say, “so your saying you only believe in God because he sent his one and only son to die on the cross for you, that is really disrespectful.”

I’m not certain what you’re getting at here, but I definitely think that if Jesus never lived on earth and there were no accounts of him, Christianity never would have been formed.

But like I said, it seems that God may rejoice even if one of his lost sheeps come in through fear and trembling. In the story of the prodigal son, the father did not say, “hmmph… your only coming back because your starving.” Instead, he embraced his son with both his arms.

That story of the prodigal son has been one of the most powerful arguments I have heard. It is difficult to argue against Love like that.

I don’t really see how this story gives evidence that God exists.

The way I think about it is this… say your on your death bed dying of cancer. You might cringe with pain and want answers for why you are dying. And a group of professionals consisting of a doctor, a philosopher, a biologist and a psychologist might give you several answers. But that will mean nothing. because once you have your answer, you realize it wasnt what you were really looking for. Whereas, if your mother, or wife, or brother simply sits by your bed side and holds on to your hand, that is far more precious than any answer you could have received. And in Christianity, we get this story about a God who so loved the world, that he gave his one and only Son. That pierces the heart for in him we realize that what we wanted more than anything else was an answerer, a savior. What we wanted most of all was God.

I agree that it is a wonderful story (at least much of it), and understand why people want to believe it is true. However, I do not think there is good reason to think that the biblical account is true. If you got an email saying that you just won a lottery despite not even entering it, you may want to believe it, and you may even believe it (as some people unfortunately do), but unless you had some good reason to think the email was true, you should accept that it is probably spam.

 

[anEvilAtheist]

This is an interesting topic, because I don’t agree that evolution does explain religious beliefs. In one sense, people can explain anything by inventing some evolutionary explanation. Thus for example one can come up with evolutionary arguments showing that monogamy has evolutionary advantage, and one can come up with evolutionary arguments showing that promiscuous sex has evolutionary advantages. Well, which is it? And it’s easy to come up with a long list of similarly contradictory behaviors that can be “proven” through evolutionary arguments.

But I find it hard to believe that believing in non-existent beings, and devoting great time, treasure and talent to these non-existent beings, can offer evolutionary advantages that cannot be gotten in other less costly ways. And I would invoke Occam’s Razor here to bolster my argument that belief in non-existent beings is not the most efficient or logical explanation for the behaviors that are said to follow such belief.

I think you’re actually slightly misunderstanding evolutionary theory. Evolution does not say that every action modern humans take maximizes our chance of passing on our genes. There are some things that were once beneficial, but are no longer beneficial. For example, our caveman ancestors were more likely to pass on their genes if they were liberal in attributing things to active agency. Basically, if they heard a twig snap in the forest, they were better off thinking it’s a predator then thinking it was caused by the wind. This way in which the brain processed information would have carried over into other situations. For example, we would want to attribute unexplainable things like the sun rising in the sky to some agent.

Interestingly, my very first post on this forum was responding to a video that lays out how evolution can explain religion. It’s a pretty long video so I won’t try to find quotes from it, but if you’re really interested, I suggest that you check it out:
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=332773

 

[anEvilAtheist]

As for Pascal’s Wager, it must be understood to be simply a starting point. I don’t think anybody should become a Christian because of Pascal’s Wager, but I do think that it can get people thinking about the consequences that follow if the Christian view is true.

In the form that Pascal’s Wager normally takes, I think it is definitely invalid and should not be used. However, I do think that if someone is deciding between Catholicism and atheism, it is perfectly valid to point out that the costs of being wrong are higher for atheists then for Catholics, so the person should carefully consider the arguments before deciding to reject Catholicism.

 

[wasmit]

I’d tell you to read the many accounts, but I think you’d find reasons not to believe them.

where are they? I would be interested in reading them.

 

[wasmit]

I’ll have to respectfully disagree also. While Karta did show a great deal of ingenuity, it wasn’t in the act of creating anything but in the act of manipulating what was already created. It is true that this was remarkable on her part, but what would have been far more remarkable would be the act of her actually designing the system herself.

By that reasoning, humans have never created anything either, they only manipulate what already exists.

 

[Angie_Baskin]

FORGET ABOUT ARGUMENTS. It’s useless. There is only one TRUTH. God IS Truth. If you want to know what the universe is read “A Course in Miracles” on line URTEXT. I challenge you. When you have, then maybe you might have something to say. Angie B

I’ve gotten a little frustrated with the amount of bad arguments that both Christians and atheists make when debating the existence of God. So here’s a question for both groups: do you stop using bad arguments once you find out that they’re flawed? Or do you keep using the argument anyway, hoping that the person you’re using it on won’t be smart enough to spot the flaw? Do the ends justify the means as long as you lead them to the right place, or is it more important to make honest arguments?

By bad arguments, I mean those that are either logically invalid, or rest on very questionable assumptions. I’ll give you a few examples to let you know where I’m coming from. One argument I hear a lot of atheists use is that because the overwhelming majority of the universe is lifeless, it could not have been designed. The problem with this is that if an omnipotent God existed, he could have created everything with no effort whatsoever and could have created the entire rest of the universe just to give us something pretty to look at and explore. Another atheist argument that I think is logically flawed is the statement that because evolution can explain why people have religious beliefs, those religious beliefs must be false. If God exists, he could simply have made us this way in order to make it easier to realize that he exists. So it shows why people might believe in God even if he doesn’t exist, but it does not show that God is merely imaginary. Another common argument is that religious people have done very bad things in the past. This does not show that their religion is false, just that members of any religion are humans, and have flaws. Both atheists and Christians have been brutal murderers and both atheists and Christians have been generous humanitarians.

As an atheist, I obviously think that many Christian arguments are flawed, and I’ll mention a couple of them. Sometimes Christians say that their beliefs must be reasonable since so many people share their beliefs and atheists must be wrong since there are fewer of us. The problem is that popularity is not a good way of establishing what the truth is. Christianity is no more or less true today than it was when it consisted of a few hundred people. Islam does not become true if it far surpasses Christianity in adherents. Another argument that just doesn’t work is Pascal’s Wager, which says that an atheist loses nothing if he accepts Catholicism and has everything to gain if it turns out to be true. Because of this, an atheist should supposedly try to believe. One problem is that religion isn’t completely costless (going to mass, giving money to the church). So in order for the wager to work, there must be some evidence that Catholicism is true, otherwise we should give all our money to anyone who walks up to us on the street and says that he will somehow give us infinite happiness in exchange. Since there are many contradictory religions, someone would have to consider every possible religion, and pick the one with the most evidence. It would take more than one lifetime to thoroughly consider the evidence for the many thousands of religions (and only considering the most popular is not good enough). So this does not really work as a way of deciding what to believe, and it really all comes down to whether the evidence for Catholicism is enough to conclude that it is probably true. Pascal’s Wager is an attempt to get people to accept weaker evidence, but it only works if people already have good enough evidence to convince them that Catholicism is probably true, in which case the wager is not needed. Another argument I sometimes hear is that someone you know was sick and recovered after you prayed for them. The reason why this doesn’t work as evidence of God is that some people will inevitably recover whether you pray for them or not. What would provide evidence of God is a study showing that people receiving prayers recovered faster than those who did not. However, so far no properly conducted study has discovered a significant effect.

I’m not saying that I’m immune from this, but when I find out that I made a bad argument, I figure out how to fix it or stop using it. So feel free to let me know if you think any of the arguments I just made are bad. Finally, I’m not trying to demean anyone; I’m just trying to figure out why people use bad arguments, and hopefully raise the level of debate so we can figure out which side has more support.

 

[anEvilAtheist]

Finally, regarding the question of evidence, I find that atheistic arguments on that score to be especially weak and one-sided. What atheists don’t realize, or actively deny, is that their position is every bit as much based on faith (belief in things not proven) as the theistic (Christian, since that’s what I believe) position.

Let me explain. Both Christians and atheists must account for the existence of the world (that is, for everything). The existence of the universe, life, human beings is the starting point. Christians offer an explanation, a First Explanation, and they offer evidence (whether you accept that evidence is another question, but the fact is that they do offer evidence).

But atheists offer no such First Explanation for the existence of the world. They simply take it as a given. They take it as a matter of faith. They offer no evidence that the existence of the world has a “natural” First Explanation, but at the same time the challenge the evidence that is offered by Christians. Thus atheists display a stark double standard on the evidence question.

Here is my answer for why I think something exists rather than nothing: I don’t know. I realize this may seem like a bad answer to some, but I feel it is the most honest one. Just because primitive man did not know why the sun rose in the sky does not mean that the only logical conclusion for them to make was that a god did it. They simply did not know. I do not claim that science does or ever will have all the answers, but merely because we don’t know why something exists rather than nothing doesn’t mean we must make up a reason. I do not claim to know for sure that some sort of god did not create the universe, but I think there is no reason to assume that. And even if there were such a creator, it could literally be almost anything. Since I do not think that any religion has good evidence (as long as you don’t consider things like hearsay to be good evidence), the true creator could just as easily turn out to be something I just made up (such as a flying spaghetti monster).

You may say this means that I am an agnostic. However, most atheists I know define atheism as not believing in any gods and agnosticism as believing we cannot ever know for sure whether any gods exist. So I guess you could call me an agnostic atheist, but I normally just call myself an atheist. I believe we should call people by the labels they ascribe to themselves (Just as I don’t say whether or not someone is a true Christian.) I do not take it “on faith” that the universe has a natural explanation; that just currently seems like the most plausible theory to me. So I really don’t see how my position requires any special faith on my part.

But I do find the question of why there is something rather than nothing to be a very fascinating one. If God exists, he is part of the things which exist and is thus part of existence. So I think both of us can ask the question of why existence exists instead of there being nothing. Absolute nothingness is a very hard concept to get one’s mind around. Outer space is not nothingness; it is part of space time. Absolute nothingness would mean no God, no matter, no time, and no empty space. This is a very hard concept to wrap one’s mind around. So it seems weird for me to think that existence has only been around for a certain amount of time, or that there has always been something no matter how far back in time you go, or that there would be nothing at all and no space in which there was nothing. From my experience here on earth, all these seem somewhat unbelievable, but one of them must be true. But it also seems extremely weird to me that when things move really fast they become huge and move through time quicker, and yet that is what science has demonstrated to be true. I am in awe of the mysteries of the universe and do not think I have all the answers. But I do not assume that just because an answer seems weird to me, it must be wrong.

 

[wasmit]

Here is my answer for why I think something exists rather than nothing: I don’t know. I realize this may seem like a bad answer to some, but I feel it is the most honest one. Just because primitive man did not know why the sun rose in the sky does not mean that the only logical conclusion for them to make was that a god did it. They simply did not know. I do not claim that science does or ever will have all the answers, but merely because we don’t know why something exists rather than nothing doesn’t mean we must make up a reason. I do not claim to know for sure that some sort of god did not create the universe, but I think there is no reason to assume that. And even if there were such a creator, it could literally be almost anything. Since I do not think that any religion has good evidence (as long as you don’t consider things like hearsay to be good evidence), the true creator could just as easily turn out to be something I just made up (such as a dragon).

This is my position also. It is the most rational position that I can see.

 

[anEvilAtheist]

And not the least of that Christian evidence is the fact that people who claimed to be eyewitnesses to the teachings and workings of God Incarnate allowed themselves to be brutally persecuted and often killed rather than recant that eyewitness testimony. Where is the logic in such behavior, if they had just made it up?

I have read a little bit about this, but I found the real evidence to be pretty thin. From what I’ve seen, there are only independent accounts of the deaths of a few of the apostles, and no evidence that they could have avoided being killed by recanting. So if you have some independent accounts of their deaths, I honestly would be interested in reading them.

Also, I am not claiming that they all made it up. I do not want to do a thorough explanation here of what I see as the most plausible explanation for the biblical accounts, but I’ll lay out very briefly what I think might have happened. I do not believe in the empty tomb (a belief shared by many biblical scholars). I believe that Jesus probably existed and was executed. I then think that his followers had dreams and visions of Jesus. Over time, and through multiple tellings, the stories grew. So I think some of them may have been convinced by their visions that Jesus had appeared to them.

 

[anEvilAtheist]

If you’re open to reading recommendations (as it sounds you are), I’ve got to mention one of my very favorite books, C.S. Lewis’ “Surprised by Joy”. It is his spiritual autobiography from “cultural Christian” childhood to atheist adulthood to the conclusion that God exists, a conclusion that left him “perhaps the most dejected and reluctant convert in all England.” How could anybody not want to read such a tale?

The book is not at all preachy as you might justly fear. It is simply a fascinating story on many levels. If you take pleasure in meeting other unique minds, you’ll take pleasure in reading Lewis’ story.

Thanks for the recommendation. I’ll look into it, but I can’t promise I’ll read it. I’ve seen some of C.S. Lewis’s work in the past and was very unimpressed (though I absolutely loved reading Narnia when I was a child). I think the central argument in Mere Christianity is fatally flawed because it does not address the possibility that Jesus may have been a legendary figure. I personally believe that he probably existed, but that the biblical account of his life is not completely accurate. Also, I listened to the audio version of The Problem of Pain. I was hoping to hear a decent refutation of the problem of evil, but instead he just showed that some evil is consistent with a benevolent God. I agree with him that some evil might be consistent with a loving God, but I think there are many especially problematic types of evil that he did not adequately address.

 

[anEvilAtheist]

I didn’t completely follow what you were saying, so I’ll just respond to what I understood well. If there’s something I didn’t address that you wanted my opinion on, feel free to ask again.

Since you seem to be interested in a one on one with others, one thing atheists can never explain, that is, based on atheistic precepts they have in common, is what benefit does it give him to waste limited finite time on a forum here?

That’s a very fair question. I definitely want to make sure that I don’t spend so much time on this forum that I don’t get out and enjoy life. But the reason I spend time on this forum is that I enjoy having intelligent discussions with people about religion. I think it’s important to keep your brain active and I have found the conversations I’ve had here over the past couple days to be very intellectually stimulating. Different atheists may be here for different reasons, and I know that some are here just to troll and try to get a reaction out of people.

The reason why this is different than going to mass is that I think most people would rather not go to mass if they knew that Christianity was false. Regardless of what religion is true, I think it is worthwhile to spend time here because I enjoy having interesting conversations with interesting people. So it is not a waste of time to me. Similarly, some people may enjoy the social atmosphere and tradition of going to church enough that they would want to go even if they were certain that God did not exist (as is the case with some Jews). For those people, going to mass is not a cost of believing in God, although there can still be other costs (for example if there is no God and you deny yourself experiences you would have found valuable because of what the church teaches). And the kind of person that loves the church experience and all the church’s moral rules is probably not the kind of person you need to convince with Pascal’s Wager. My guess is that most people would rather do something else with their time if they knew that Christianity was false. So there’s a big difference between people going to mass, and me posting on this forum.

It’s nice to be able to say “there isn’t an Authority over me”. But it would be wise to find out first,…just in case. So logic would suggest to cover all bases …just in case. The problem with this is that the Authority is demanding and expects us to have a life long commitment to his will, which includes worship, and everything will be judged based on what we have done throughout life. This is not to say that those who come to a decision to obey at the last second can not be accepted, but it sure would increase the odds if one found out and obeyed earlier.

I don’t take pleasure in saying “there isn’t an Authority over me”, and would have no problem living under God’s rules if I thought he existed. If a person walked up to you and said that God had told him that if you gave him $100 every month, you and your family would be ensured a place in heaven, would you figure that you should cover all your bases just to be safe and give him the money? Or would you say that his claim doesn’t fit with your understanding of God and the world and then only give him the money if you were able to find solid evidence that his claim was true? That is similar to my situation. People say that I should believe, but all my experiences point to there being no God. Because of this, I will not believe in God until I am given some reason why I should. And as I have explained many times in this thread, Pascal’s Wager is not a good reason.

 

[anEvilAtheist]

But you already have a reason to continue exploring Catholicism. Very simple; here - you - are.
Did you expect to be smitten from heaven with a bolt of lightening. The best evidence for anything is simply finding yourself in the middle of it. And here you are in the middle of a Catholic Apologetics forum; would you be here if you did not want to be here.
Why are you not on an Islamic website forum or a scientology web forum, or a protestant web forum, there are probably more protestants in the US than Catholics.

Nobody is suggesting you try and force yourself to believe something you don’t, I would’nt bother with that at all, I am suggesting only you consider why you picked on Catholicism, and why you’d bother thinking about God or religion in any case. 'Cause I don’t know why you’d bother if you were not interested somehow. And that very interest in itself is a reason to continue, because that interest is something real, which can be persued, just on its own merits.
And as I said before, Christianity comes with a built-in guarantee that you will succeed.
So I see a reason for you to continue, if you wish.

You’re right; I would not be here if I did not want to be here. I am interested in debating religion and trying to understand why people believe what they do. And yes, as long as I find conversations like this interesting, I will continue posting. Not because I want to believe, but because I enjoy the discussion.

I explained my reasons for choosing the CAF earlier in this thread:

I’d love to have enough time to post on lots of different message boards, but there just aren’t enough hours on the day. I guess I focus on Christianity because it’s the predominant religion here in the U.S. I also know it better, and I think it’s important to have a decent understanding of a religion before you try to argue against it. I chose to post on a Catholic site because in some ways I think that Catholics are more logical than Fundamentalists, and so I thought you guys might be more interesting to argue with.

I also know Catholicism a little better than Protestantism since more of my relatives are Catholic than Protestant.

 

[anEvilAtheist]

I label myself as agnostic.

The arguemnts in the OP obviously contain logical fallacies, and are therefore false.

I would not use arguments that I know are wrong, because it is dishonest. I have probably used arguments that are invalid, but I do not see that they are invalid. I would stop using a particular argument that is shown to be wrong.

If someone is persuaded by your invalid argument, they will eventually find out that the argument is wrong, and resent you and the cause you are arguing for. Ignoring the dishonesty aspect, this tactic(lying) just doesn’t work.

It frustrates me when a person’s argument is shown to be false, but they ignore the criticism and keep using that argument that they know is wrong. e.g. Kent Hovind.

Finally, a fellow nonbeliever! Thanks for posting your thoughts. Yeah, it’s really frustrating when people keep using arguments after they’ve been proven wrong. At least Ray Comfort FINALLY stopped using his banana argument after it became a huge laughingstock.

 

[anEvilAtheist]

Orangutan creates ladder. See news story.

news.com.au/story/0,27574,25456799-2,00.html

Looks like I beat you to it:

I respectfully disagree with your statement that the ability of humans to create is strong evidence of God. If God does not exist, it seems very plausible that we evolved to the level of intelligence that allows us to do things like create. And while you don’t see other animals building cars or making computers, there are animals who create things (dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1180052/Karta-ingenious-orangutan-escaped-cage-short-circuiting-electric-fence-stick.html).

 

[anEvilAtheist]

I’d tell you to read the many accounts, but I think you’d find reasons not to believe them.

I don’t know if this comment is intended just at wasmit or at me as well. If the accounts are hearsay or there is some other good reason not to believe them then of course I won’t accept them as definitely true. But if there actually is decent evidence that they died for their beliefs I would certainly like to know.

You said with confidence that they died for their beliefs. If there is not support for this statement then there’s no way you can expect people to see this as evidence that Christianity is true. You would be using Christian beliefs to prove Christianity, which seems a bit circular.

 

[anEvilAtheist]

I’ll have to respectfully disagree also. While Karta did show a great deal of ingenuity, it wasn’t in the act of creating anything but in the act of manipulating what was already created. It is true that this was remarkable on her part, but what would have been far more remarkable would be the act of her actually designing the system herself.

You make a good point. I guess when it comes down to it, all she did is manipulate a stick and make a pile of sticks and grass. However, animals do make tools, though certainly no monkey has been able to build an airplane yet. Here is one example that shows animals making tools:
scienceblogs.com/notrocketscience/2009/03/congolese_chimps_modify_fishing-sticks_to_make_them_even_mor.php
I’m sure I could find others, but hopefully that is enough to establish that animals can take the raw materials found in nature and make tools out of them.

But there is something more fundamental here. An animal which is free by nature being kept in an unnatural environment. She is portrayed in that article as an intelligent escapee when in fact she is simply attempting to regain what she knows is natural to her - her freedom and wildness. She is trying to escape the trappings of technology in order to live the life she knows she was born to live. It’s a pretty strong statement against this day and age when we (speaking of mankind) willingly enslave ourselves to technology and allow it to think and control us while Karta has to be kept in a similar environment by brute force. It is quite possible that Karta is smarter than we thought - that is if we really ever thought about it.

Interesting insight.

 

[anEvilAtheist]

FORGET ABOUT ARGUMENTS. It’s useless. There is only one TRUTH. God IS Truth. If you want to know what the universe is read “A Course in Miracles” on line URTEXT. I challenge you. When you have, then maybe you might have something to say. Angie B

I’d be very curious about what you think of this:

ewtn.com/library/NEWAGE/BRAINWAS.TXT