Three Interesting Blog Entries

Three blog entries came to my attention this morning. Here is a pretty comprehensive entry on Why I Am an Atheist. Another one criticizes some trends among atheists, although you'll see I don't agree with everything Bud says. A third one concerns atheist morality. Enjoy.

5 comments:

Lazarus said...

Atheism is ephemeral, and stands outside of time, space and matter. As such it cannot be attacked, or criticized. Or even understood. We have lots of evidence for atheism, and atheism is a personal experience. Millions of people cannot be wrong. We must have an open mind to the possibility of the miracle of atheism, because only then will we see the miracle. The scriptures of atheism was divinely inspired and must be true, despite their internal inconsitencies. I also know that atheism is true because I had a vision last night, and a voice in my heart tells me so.

Ken Pulliam said...

John,

thanks for these links. I enjoyed each one of them. I do agree with much of the criticisms raised about how atheists present themselves. It doesn't help our cause to come across as arrogant jerks.

Ken
http://formerfundy.blogspot.com

Chris Jones said...

I'm going to agree with Ken on this one. Allow someone to feel as if they're being insulted or attacked, and any chance of a fair hearing goes away.

Anonymous said...

Well, there is debate about this, isn't there, Chris? In my book WIBA I did not try to offend Christians at all. And many of them are reading it.

I've already defended my use of the fact that I think Christians are brainwashed elsewhere, but we need to consider both approaches.

There is a use for ridicule.

I see no reason why both approaches are not needed, one approach for some Christians and another approach for others.

I don't think I have gotten more attention than when I said Christians are brainwashed. It's something we all agree on, that some believers are brainwashed, since Christians would say that of Muslims raised in Muslim countries.

Some Christians may ask "whether or not this is true of me?" And those Christians who will do this have been pushed to the point where they'll investigate their faith more deeply by reading the opposition. Mark my words. I'll hear from a Christian or two in the near future who have lost their faith because I told them they were brainwashed. Because I did they will read the appropriate literature.

Again, I see no reason why both approaches can and are effective for different Christians.

What do you think of Dawkins who says raising children to believe is "child abuse," or Hitchens who says "religion poisons everything," or even Nietzsche who said "God is dead." It's this kind of rhetoric that gets people talking. Sure some will attack the person who said it, as they have, but others will consider whether or not it is true.

James said...

D'Souza is really good at apologetic debate, as Hitchens certifies.

What does he think is his weakest point? The problem of evil.
Two thirds of the opening statement should have been given over to this argument.

(The rest? Some weakness of Christianity--the case against the Resurrection, the immorality of Atonement, the incoherence of the notion of incarnation--something like that.)

His opponent's opening statement, as d'Souza says, rambled everywhere--except on topic.