Five Ways To Know If You've Granted Too Much And Aren't A Threat

We all grant for the sake of argument a few things from time to time. The reason we do so is to reach across the great divide between Christians and ourselves. But we should not grant too much, depending on the argument. How do we know if we have? I have a five-fold answer.

1) If Christians don't feel the force of your arguments. Greg Cavin's case against the resurrection of Jesus, not only in the book, The Empty Tomb, edited by Robert Price and Jeff Lowder, but also in his recent debate with Mike Licona, is one of the weakest I have seen. It's because Cavin grants way too much. I did like his Schmatoms vs Atoms argument very much though, and I look forward to his book on the topic. But why anyone would say his arguments "constitute a major contribution to the ongoing debate about the Resurrection and are the best case against the Resurrection yet presented," as Jeff Lowder said, is beyond me. Cavin grants way too much and does not present a threat to the Christian faith. Neither he nor Lowder realize this, even though I think Cavin's case is very good.

2) If Christians love the discussion back and forth with you. If Christians aren't upset with you then you're not making a difference. If they love the discussion back and forth then you are not a threat to their faith. This isn't to say someone must be obnoxious to make a difference. Obnoxious people who are ignorant can be safely ignored. But atheists who have a certain level of knowledge who argue that religion in all it's forms, qua religion, is both harmful and delusional will provoke their ire. Guaranteed. Anyone who thinks it's a badge of honor to be liked by Christians is deluded. It is a mark of dishonor.

3) If Christians are practically the only ones defending you. Let's say you're in a dispute with another atheist and practically the only ones defending you are Christians. That's a sign you're not a threat to their faith at all. Guaranteed. You have granted way too much.

4) If you argue like Christians do. I have met atheists like this all of the time. They play the Devil's Advocate against me. When doing so they're arguing like Christians. I have argued with Christians for years but no matter how tiny of a loophole might exist they'll jump through it. I have to chase them down a never ending rabbit's hole, and even then they'll usually escape my clutches given the Omniscience Escape Clause. I have never produced a single argument that alone will convince a Christian otherwise because this is beyond the scope of what an argument can do. Christians were never argued into their faith so they can hardly ever be argued out of it. When I encounter Devil's Advocates, atheists on my side, I want to know what they think about a given issue, not what a Christian does. I couldn't possibly hope to convince a deluded Christian so don't respond as one. What would a rational person think instead? That's what I want to know.

5) If you're an enabler who criticizes non-essential unimportant arguments of other atheists in order to act like you are impartial and objective. In doing this you have to pick your targets though. Don't pick your friends. Pick people you don't know. Pick people you don't like for one reason or another. [Edit: Jeff has still not addressed my argument from the scale of the universe].

Hey, everyone, this describes Jeffery Jay Lowder. ;-)

I've already written an open letter to Lowder right here. He has failed, just as he previously tried but failed. What makes an otherwise intelligent person repeatedly try but fail at showing one of my arguments is wrong, if it isn't because he has another agenda?

Jeff, you don't get it. You say you're criticizing my arguments to keep atheists like myself from embarrassing ourselves. Okay then, which argument of mine have you shown to be an embarrassment? Which one? I test ideas on my blog but my full fledged arguments are found in my published books. Which ones have you read? Which arguments of mine are weak in comparison to the totality of my case? No more nitpicking. No more discussion for discussion's sake. No more Devil's Advocate. No one who deals with the totality of the arguments I do can have a scholar's grasp on everything, so I know there are weak arguments in my case. Why then pick on them? YOU try coming up with a cumulative type argument that I'm making and let's see how well you do.

The bottom line is that you are an enabler, Jeff. You do not think religious faith is both harmful and irrational. So tell us what you think for the record. Come out from underneath your rock and stop being passive aggressive about it. Tell us all what you think. Is religious faith both harmful and irrational or not? If you don't think so then you stand against not just me, but against most every atheist who argues with passion against religious faith in all of its forms.

I wish you would come clean about this. Then several people who blog with you will know they stand with me against you, if what I suspect is true. Perhaps you can begin by reviewing the following book so everyone can see where you stand: An Atheist Defends Religion: Why Humanity is Better Off with Religion Than Without It

Or, you could remain passive aggressive with an alternative agenda. Reasonable people will see through you so be careful how you respond. We're waiting.

Don't misunderstand me yet once again Jeff. I don't personally care where you stand. We can argue the merits of what you think later as a separate issue. I just want you to declare it. That way when people see you criticizing me they will understand why, that's all. It's because we see things differently. I abhor religious faith and you think it has merit, or something. Which is it?


Unknown said...

How about this argument against the Omniscience Escape Clause?

1 By definition, an sufficiently powerful being could do anything that is logically possible.

2 it is logically possible for a being to be created with the illusion of omniscience and omnipotence except being incapable of knowing anything about its creator.

3 An apparently omnipotent and omniscient being would know it could create such a being.

4 No being can know whether it is a created being in such a situation or not and it would not be powerful enough to find out.

Therefore, actual omniscience and omnipotence are not logically possible.

Morrison said...

Sounds like you see Lowder as a threat to you Mr. Loftus.

Unknown said...

I enjoy reading the comments section. It gives insight as to how other people think about things. Lately, I've been reading comments from several blogs and I notice a lot of "missing the original point." Take Morrison's comment as an example.

I believe John's basic point is he doesn't immediately care that Lowder disagrees with him; he simply wants him to be clear and honest about WHY he disagrees, based on what core belief. It seems to me that Morrison completely missed that.

So, my question is, why are people more and more frequently missing the original point? Or is it me?

Unknown said...


Often the point is too sharp so the cognitive dissonance shuts down the part of the brain that would have to deal with the point. I've been on the Internet for about 18 years and chronic point missing was common back then on Usenet.