Please please help.

[Zimm3r]

Good point- Appeal to authority can be flawed.

Let me know if you do check out those books- and until you do, don’t make any definitive positions on your faith. Make sure to read thoroughly both sides of any argument =)

Lastly, if you need more book recommendations about any topic, please let me know. I guarantee to have excellent books on any topic of contention for you!

Thanks reading the first pages of “A Handbook of Christian Apologetics” on Amazon.

 

[wcknight]

Zimm, look at why he decided to turn atheist. He became flustered because he could not answer some questions by his professor, and he found problems with his own interpretations of the Bible.

Firstoff, he was no expert in either the Bible nor Christianity. His training and upbringing simply did not match his professors.

Second, his pride made him believe that he was somehow infallible in interpreting scriptures ( a huge protestant misconception - that anyone who reads scriptures will be guided by the Holy Spirit to accurately interpret it in every case for every situation), That is simply not true. This is a huge reason why the Catholic Church has a large number of folks specializing in interpreting scriptures.

It is great if we read scrpitures also, BUT we will all get into problems if we start to apply it to all life situations like the protestants do.

SO this wannabe Bible expert thought he could take on any atheist and failed to convince his professor that atheism was wrong. Well he did not have the expertise to do so, and he mistakenly thought that he was unbeatable or infallible in his thinking. He set himself up to fail from the very start.

 

[Zimm3r]

Zimm, look at why he decided to turn atheist. He became flustered because he could not answer some questions by his professor, and he found problems with his own interpretations of the Bible.

Firstoff, he was no expert in either the Bible nor Christianity. His training and upbringing simply did not match his professors.

Second, his pride made him believe that he was somehow infallible in interpreting scriptures ( a huge protestant misconception - that anyone who reads scriptures will be guided by the Holy Spirit to accurately interpret it in every case for every situation), That is simply not true. This is a huge reason why the Catholic Church has a large number of folks specializing in interpreting scriptures.

It is great if we read scrpitures also, BUT we will all get into problems if we start to apply it to all life situations like the protestants do.

SO this wannabe Bible expert thought he could take on any atheist and failed to convince his professor that atheism was wrong. Well he did not have the expertise to do so, and he mistakenly thought that he was unbeatable or infallible in his thinking. He set himself up to fail from the very start.

No doubt the professor out classed him that is my point the professor provided arguments, his faith is irrelevant.

To your second point I won’t get in to much about the church but suffice it to say the church was transformed during the middle ages from the church that Christ created, that Peter lead, and Paul defended to a corrupt political organisation that still has not gotten close to its former glory (though some have tried and done well (Blessed Pope John Paul II))

To not apply scripture would be keeping your religion compartmentalised and not fully “who you are”

 

[ThinkingSapien]

He explains elementary school-level concepts with fancy graphics and diagrams as if he were teaching quantum physics. He says he is trying to reach out to believers but he is making my neck hurt from having to look up to him on his pedestal. Also, what is with the high qualitiy of his video? Did he have some help from some anti-religion group?

It’s Apple Keynote (you may be more familiar with Power Point, they are similar in concept). It’s designed to allow some one to easily produce a presentation with background music, transitions, and narration. And it’s fairly inexpensive! You can get it on the OS X and iOS. After I saw him using it I tried it out and had a good amount of success in making nice videos (though mine are on Computer Science topics and not religious ones).

While I think most in this forum would find the concepts easy to grasp in reaching for a broader audience I think he decided to err on the side of possibly explaining more than needed instead of less. I think this was influenced from experiences he had in teaching students in Computer Science and sometimes finding that a student may not have yet grasped onto a simple concept tht is necessary for an explanation he’s provided.

Why don’t you write out the atheist arguments this guy makes and we’ll refute them.

The video series was originally intended as a recollection of his transition from being a Christian and how his faith in Christianity was erroded over time without him initiall being aware that it was being erroded. So the first part of the series doesn’t have much arguments per se. He’s also a candidate for PhD and his concentration in the area of Computer Science. More specifically on Evidentialism applied to the area of AI. Evidentialism becomes an underlying theme within these vids and part of the foundation of what he later tries to support (which s also implied by his user name Evid3nc3). The last two videos he’s completed at this time are centered on Evidentialism and the objetions to it.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

Zimm, look at why he decided to turn atheist. He became flustered because he could not answer some questions by his professor, and he found problems with his own interpretations of the Bible.

That was a contributor to him walking away from Christianity but not the only contributor. He’s shared other contributors, but they are spread throughout the first 90 minutes of his presentations. From what he’s said in video 2.0 what he’s presented is simplified (time marker 2:18-2:38). So it could be said that not all of the reasons are presented.

 

[heaintheavy]

Atheists have a bunch of arguments on why they think God does not exist, BUT none have ever definitively proved that God does not exist, and they never will.

Even the famous astro physicists Card Sagan, NEil Tyson, and Steven Hawking have NOT proved that there is no God.

It is an impossibility and IF they are honest they will admit that to you. What some of them have proved (or think they have proved) is that the universe could have come into existence by natural means. In their way of thinking there is no ‘need’ for God. BUT that is a far cry from proving that there is no God.

These folks are very smart people BUT that does not make them right. And based on my readings, experiences and from the experiences of folks who I know and trust, I am 100% certain that they are dead wrong. I would encourage you to read about the lives of the saints, and about some of the experiences of the folks on this web site (including my own and those of my close friends).

The spiritual realm DOES exist, and God is very much a part of the spiritual realm, and the Catholic Church has it right. It takes time to build up a faith strong enough to
discount all the rubbish that is thrown out by those who do not believe. These folks have closed their minds off to the possibility of God, and they will explain away everything as delusion or hoaxes or myths. BUT there are far too many very good people, who are sincere and honest, who have experienced these things first hand for them ALL not to be true.

Even IF a large part of them were liars and trying to mislead folks, the remaining folks would be more than enough to make the existence of God and the spiritual realm true.

Scientists (and most atheists) are disputing the existence of God based on man’s understanding of the physical world. BUT God is spirit, He is beyond anything that they can comprehend or observe. Let the scientists stick to this universe, God is far beyond this physical universe.

Of course one can’t “prove” that God doesn’t exist. I can tell you that there is the spirit of a table in front of you, and you can’t prove to me that I’m wrong.
But by the same token, one can’t prove God *does *exist, too! It’s often a matter of what you believe, not what is real or true or not.

 

[heaintheavy]

That is what I am trying however I understand the God may or may not be but no proof either way thing what I am having trouble with is he presents and wide and very well though out and reasoned defence of his beliefs so I am now asking for help rebutting it so to provide counter evidence (like a scale).

As for the close minded atheists are closed to a God and theists are closed to no god. Really not that much of a worry

Also I am looking for truth and evidence and finding none to refute his please help.

I imagine there cannot be that much of a rebuttal, since many of the inconsistencies he points out about the bible are indeed logically true, in black and white, and cannot be denied.

 

[wcknight]

Acceptance of God, Heaven, the supernatural, and things not of this physical world does boil down to faith. Unless one experiences these things first hand, no one can ‘prove’ absolutely whether these things are real or not.

I have no first hand experience with the supernatural. Relatively few people experience miracles, apparitions, or God. BUT I know folks who have, and there are enough folks throughout history who have. The people I know who experienced these things first hand are/were not delusional. They were reliable upright folks who had no reason to lie and I trust them 100%. Just about the same can be said about all the saints. They were honest and upright men and women.

The best description I’ve heard about faith is, suppose you are in a burning building and there is no way out except by jumping out the window. You can not see anything because of the smoke, but you hear a voice that you recognize as a friend or loved one that tells you to jump. And then you hear several other familiar voices who say the same thing. They have a net to catch you.

That is the type of faith that I have in these folks and in the experiences and miracles of the saints. I believe that they are all telling me the truth. That they really do have net, and they not doing so because they are perpetrating a hoax, and that they are not delusional. I do not see the net, but I believe the folks who are telling me that it exists.

 

[fhansen]

Acceptance of God, Heaven, the supernatural, and things not of this physical world does boil down to faith. Unless one experiences these things first hand, no one can ‘prove’ absolutely whether these things are real or not.

I have no first hand experience with the supernatural. Relatively few people experience miracles, apparitions, or God. BUT I know folks who have, and there are enough folks throughout history who have. The people I know who experienced these things first hand are/were not delusional. They were reliable upright folks who had no reason to lie and I trust them 100%. Just about the same can be said about all the saints. They were honest and upright men and women.

The best description I’ve heard about faith is, suppose you are in a burning building and there is no way out except by jumping out the window. You can not see anything because of the smoke, but you hear a voice that you recognize as a friend or loved one that tells you to jump. And then you hear several other familiar voices who say the same thing. They have a net to catch you.

That is the type of faith that I have in these folks and in the experiences and miracles of the saints. I believe that they are all telling me the truth. That they really do have net, and they not doing so because they are perpetrating a hoax, and that they are not delusional. I do not see the net, but I believe the folks who are telling me that it exists.

This is a great testimony to your own faith-and a great encouragement for and testimony to the importance of those private revelations that others have had and shared with the rest of us.

 

[Evid3nc3]

This is the creator of the video series. The reason I know about this thread is because I have a Google Alert for my username being used on websites.

Why I Made the Series

First, I would like to confirm that the primary purpose of the series is not to deconvert people from religion. The purpose is to show people HOW someone can deconvert. To show that it is possible and what the thought process is.

For those of you claiming I was never a genuine Christian: you’re wrong. Period. I was a Christian and I think my series shows more evidence for that than I have seen for anyone claiming to have a previous religous identity of any kind (for example Christians who claim to have previously been atheists).

Now, while I didn’t design the series to deconvert people, I did think it was a possible. Zimm3r is not the first person I’ve witnessed or been contacted by.

And I don’t think this is a bad thing. I think religion is damaging both to individuals who believe in it and to society at large. I think that any good religion does can be done without religion. So I think religion is at worst damaging and at best irrelevant. How can I believe such a thing? If you want the answer: watch my series.

Part 2 is Just the Beginning

Now, most of you are focusing on Part 2 of the series. Which is odd, because the strongest arguments for atheism are in Part 3.

Part 2 is meant to show how I became an atheist. It isn’t supposed to be a knock-down argument for why atheism is a strong position. It is a documentary.

Think of the reasons why you became a Christian originally. Were they good ones? Most people become Christians (or anything) because their parents are or for emotional/personal reasons. If that was your only foundation, it would be a bad one. It is not until after you have some experience as a Christian that you begin to learn the better arguments for Christianity and build a better foundation. You find the better thinkers in the faith like the ones that Gidras05 mentioned.

Here is what you need to realize: the same is true for atheism. As I have gained more experience, thought more, and read more, I have found better and better arguments for my position. Here is a series breakdown to give you some perspective on this:

Part 1: How I was a Christian
Part 2: How I became an atheist
Part 3: Better arguments for atheism
Part 4: Even better arguments for atheism
Part 5: Why life is more beautiful and meaningful for me now

Who is Right?

So, if both Christians and atheists convert/deconvert for weak reasons, how do we know who is right? Aren’t both sides just doing the same thing?

Not exactly. Because here is one glaring difference between me and the rest of you: I was a Christian. For 17 years. I read the Bible from the age of 6 and dove into it during college. I was committed to my faith and my perceived relationship with God. Can any of you say the same about your experience with atheism? If not, then, suffice to say, I have much more life experience with your life philosophy than you have with mine.

So, when someone has tried it both ways and seen both sides yet they choose one side over the other, it lends some credibility to their decision on what side they choose. It probably means you should at least hear what they have to say if you plan to commit to the other side.

As you know, Zimm3r, I seek the truth like you, no matter what it is, God or no God. I would be impressed to see any of the rest of you giving Zimm3r advice make the same pledge for truth.

 

[Gidras05]

Welcome Evid3nc3 to the discussion!

As a Catholic, it is lamentable to me to see the process you underwent, although I am certain you do not feel the same way. I watched your videos, and I have to say that I’m impressed by the time and effort taken to produce them. Under Parts 3 and 4, you focus on a lot of the more common arguments for atheism, and some are indeed strong.

However, like you said, both sides have their experts, and their philosophies, and their science. What it boils down to is, which are you going to side with? Despite what your personal life testimony may have concluded, other people undergo the opposite. There are a lot of people that have converted to the faith as a result of individual study and truth-seeking. The most famous example is Lee Strobel, the journalist who created the books/videos on the Case for Faith and Case for Christ. Don’t get me wrong, I’m not saying his arguments are definitive, or even that strong compared to others, but my main point is that there are people who do see both sides of the argument and side with theism.

As a college-aged man who has personally undergone these trials, I have to side with theism as well, and with Catholicism too. The evidence that I have read about makes me certain that I would have to have more faith in being atheist than in being a theist.

Anyway, I applaud you for trying to discern the truth, whether that is set in a God or not. Even if this may be in vain to you, I will pray that as you further study, or more arguments are published for either side, that you find yourself in the loving embrace of the Church oncemore.

(even though I understand that you are perfectly happy and feel more fulfilled in the position you have taken currently)

Edit: Antony Flew was one of the biggest proponents for atheism, and led a large part of the New Atheist movement, but converted after learning some of the defenses of the Faith that came about the new movement itself. Interesting story, his, and he wrote a book about it as well.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antony_Flew

 

[Evid3nc3]

Thanks for the congenial reply. Just for clarification: the series isn’t finished. Part 3 is still in progress and Parts 4/5 haven’t been created yet. That was meant to be a future breakdown.

There are indeed experts on both sides. And, as mentioned, I myself will soon have PhD in Computer Science, where my dissertation focuses on the application of philosophy to AI in the form of applied Evidentialism.

The ambiguity of which “experts” to choose is part of the reason why Appeal to Authority is a fallacy. I think we should choose based on evidence: “Where does the evidence lead?”. I make the argument for why in my series, particularly the latest videos.

I don’t think people should listen to my arguments because I am an expert. I think people should listen to my arguments because of the evidence I have for them. I try to remove myself from the thinking process as much as possible and connect people directly with the evidence they need to make a decision.

 

[Gidras05]

Point taken- and yes Appeal to Authority is certainly fallacious in its logic. However, I do believe that at the very least, most “experts” have compiled evidence as well. It is not the same as listening to experts who explain their thoughts and opinions as evidence itself.

For example, Fr. Robert J Spitzer compiles evidence from many realms of thought in Cosmology to formulate his arguments in his book. He does the same with Physics. Most of his book is dedicated to compiling evidence, much like your videos. I don’t believe that reading his material and learning about the evidence he compiled is any different than watching your material and learning about the evidence you compiled.

In trying to discern truth, it is through these “experts” that we often find means to obtain the evidence for our own sake. And through comparing evidence for and against theism, we are able to make an informed conclusion for ourselves, until new light is shed on new evidence, that may or may not mitigate our resolve in our conclusion.

Edit: And just for clarification, I did not mean to say I watched your Part 4. I meant I watched your videos and according to your post your Parts 3 and 4 are dedicated to arguments for atheism, which from my personal experience and reading some of the more popular arguments for atheism, some are indeed strong. I should’ve been more careful with my word choice.

 

[Job42]

For those of you claiming I was never a genuine Christian: you’re wrong. Period.

I believe you were a real Christian, just without a firm foundation. It looks like you have cemented yourself pretty heavy in Atheism now.

I was a Christian and I think my series shows more evidence for that than I have seen for anyone claiming to have a previous religous identity of any kind (for example Christians who claim to have previously been atheists).

So a real Christian can become an Atheist but a real Atheist can never become a Christian?

 

[ThinkingSapien]

So a real Christian can become an Atheist but a real Atheist can never become a Christian?

No, I think he is saying that there are people that make claims of having had world view Green and have switched to world view Red, but beyond stating that claim there is no further supporting information provided. By contrast he has made such a claim and provided further supporting information. The phrase “for example Christians who claim to have previously been atheists” seems to be a more specific example of this (less abstract). But it wasn’t stated or implied that a “real Atheist” can never become a Christian.

 

[Evid3nc3]

ThinkingSapien is correct. I think any person can become anything. But I have never seen a Christian document their case for converting from atheism with the amount of detail that I have documented my case for deconverting from Christianity. I’m not saying it has never happened. I believe it probably has.

But I don’t have good evidence for how solid their foundation was. In contrast, you can see in pretty considerable detail, how much I thought about as a Christian and how hard I defended my faith.

And I’m not cemented in anything. I continue to wait for valid evidence for God. And I continue to find none. I’m an Evidentialist first. My atheism is only a consequence of seeing no evidence. I don’t believe in God for the same reason I don’t believe in greek gods, UFOs, or leprechauns. Not because I am “cemented” but because I have no evidence to lay as a foundation for any of those beliefs.

 

[ASimon]

Quite often, when I hear a Christian boast that they “used to be an atheist,” I find that what they really mean is that they had, at one point, never really bothered the question of God’s existence for themselves, nor lived their life as though God existed. They probably would not have considered themselves to be atheist at the time, but it seems that way in retrospect, given their current status of religious faith.

 

[Zimm3r]

Quite often, when I hear a Christian boast that they “used to be an atheist,” I find that what they really mean is that they had, at one point, never really bothered the question of God’s existence for themselves, nor lived their life as though God existed. They probably would not have considered themselves to be atheist at the time, but it seems that way in retrospect, given their current status of religious faith.

I wouldn’t say that because I was an atheist for what has been most of my life (well first not caring at all and then questioning and becoming an atheist). However to say that someone from either Christianity or Atheism cannot convert to the other is I’d say false as both sides much acknowledge that there is not mathematically certain 100 percent proof for either side simply then what one is more probabilistic.

Also Evid3nc3 evidentialism is no more out of the woods when it comes to this, it tries to deal with this but fundamentally can’t because for example your case for first the senses rests on those senses being what they are (no this may seem like ridiculous hyperbole) that they can detect “everything” which they obviously can’t (for example infra-red spectrum) so then the basis of evidentialism is not a basis at all but is based in axioms and as with anything based on axioms you must evaluate the axioms themselves (such as the axioms in mathematics). In the end I find evidentialism to be extremely week but also after rewatching your videos I think the reason you fell out of Christianity is your defence was extremely week compared to a professor (what professor btw you never mention who I figure I’ll ask as I’m curious) who easily counter these opinions. In my opinion take a renewed look at religion and theology as a whole.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

Also Evid3nc3 evidentialism is no more out of the woods when it comes to this, it tries to deal with this but fundamentally can’t because for example your case for first the senses rests on those senses being what they are (no this may seem like ridiculous hyperbole) that they can detect “everything” which they obviously can’t (for example infra-red spectrum)

Did you watch the video on “Objections to Evidentialism”? He addressed this objection there (his example was radiation).

 

[Zimm3r]

Did you watch the video on “Objections to Evidentialism”? He addressed this objection there (his example was radiation).

Wasn’t the example mathematics anyways he still makes two basic assumptions

1 I exist
2 My sense are sometimes correct

and then he goes on to say he bases his life off of evidence, but no he bases it off of these two principles in the end evidentialism is only self consistent because of these two beliefs so therefore is no better than any other argument. Evidentialism is not some cure all bullet or a better solution it is a mediocre solution instead you need to step back from Atheism (by your way of belief in evidentialism to a neutral position neither theism or atheism). The idea that Evidentialism is better than say Deism is silly Deism makes claims that are as equally provable (that is there not)

Deism

1. A being existed before this universe (God)

Evidentialism

1. I exist
2. My sense are sometimes correct.