The problem with theism is not only that it is false, but encourages cosmic myopia. In the face of countless competing claims, the believer insists that it is his story that answers the world's important questions.
Why? I'll tell you why. Because theists gravitate to that field, that's why. In fact, given that they do gravitate to that field, the fact that there aren't MORE theists working in it tells us something interesting about the philosophy of religion (PoR) itself. I've been arguing that the PoR should end in the secular universities. A new study confirms what I'm saying since the discipline isn't even able to keep those believers who enter it! That's the take away from a recent study of the figures.
Quote from atheists like Thomas Nagel or Jean Paul Sartre who say things you agree with. Throw them all together and let them make your case for you. Then forget or ignore why these people are atheists in the first place.
Are you frustrated that most believers stare back at you with that blank caught-in-the-headlights look as you ask them to think about their faith? Is it maddening to you? Are you scratching your hair out and looking balder by the day? Then here's a solution for you. It's not for everyone. Atheists who are not so frustrated and encouraged that they're making a difference should keep on doing what they're doing. But others might consider taking the following advice. Treat believers as if they are six years old. Al Blazo, a friend of mine, suggested doing something brilliant with this in an email. It's also hilarious:
There is no shortage of arguments against religion. Some are practical in nature, others are philosophical. Some aim to discredit theism in general, others target specific propositions of Christianity, Islam, and so on. These arguments come from a huge variety of fields, including textual criticism, historical criticism, archaeology, anthropology, evolutionary biology, cosmology, sociology, logic, the philosophy of mind, and epistemology. Many are by themselves sufficient to render religious belief unreasonable, but together they constitute an overwhelming case against faith-based beliefs in “truths” privately revealed by supernatural agents to human prophets.
While working on a forthcoming book, a few arguments occurred to me that I either couldn’t find in the literature, or don’t think are represented the way they should be, given their strength. Two of these arguments are, as far as I can tell, new. I’d be very interested to know what readers think.
So, here goes:
Victor Reppert, David Marshall and Randal Rauser have repeatedly said atheists must abide by their definitions of the word "Faith"--then they have all defined that word differently. *cough* Not so. Not at all. Not even close. Here is the definition refutation of such tomfoolery:
This book destroys the Kalam argument, by math expert James Lindsay, Ph.D.,
Dot, Dot, Dot: Infinity Plus God Equals Folly.
In this new book I'm going to teach budding apologists what to avoid, using examples from the best of the best Christian apologists today. In the process they'll be challenged to do it better than others have done so far. However, I'll argue that defending the Christian faith cannot be done well at all. It's a tongue in cheek thingy.
How to Be a Good Christian Apologist
A Manual for Christian Apologists
A Manual for Christian Apologetics
A Manual for Being a Good Christian Apologist
A Christian Apologist’s Manual
A Christian Apologetics Manual
A Handbook for Christian Apologists
A Handbook for Christian Apologetics
A Handbook for Being a Good Christian Apologist
A Christian Apologist’s Handbook
A Christian Apologetics Handbook
Subtitles:
How to Defend the Christian Faith
Advice from an Atheist
A Former Apologist Turned Atheist Tells All
An Atheist Tells All
A Friendly Atheist Tells All
How to Do it Right