Lallapalalable
New Member
http://www.everystudent.com/features/isthere.html
Not familiar with the website or author, Marilyn Adamson, so if they are notoriously fluent in verbal diarrhea then apologies for the noise. But I had to click on the ad, because it just sounded so sure of itself. Lo and behold, I was treated to every tired and discounted argument I've ever heard, but what struck me as odd was that the author claimed to be an atheist herself, and one that actively sought to debate religion with believers. Then why, I thought, would one even bother to produce these arguments?
As someone who spent a period of time doing just that, debating religion, I can tell you that each and every one of those reasons is easily thrown away by even the most casual debaters. Here, let me show you the abridged version:
1-Irreducible Complexity/Life Tailored Earth
2-Something had to create the universe
3-Something has to enforce the laws of nature
4-More Irreducible Complexity, but only about DNA
5-Thinking about God's existence means God is making you think about him
6-Hurr Durr! Jesus!
So only four, really, as two are the same and the last one is the typical circular logic and chance to make a shout out that these people love so much.
Anyway, none of those arguments haven't been personally bashed by anyone who's ever at least gotten their toes wet in the whole debate, so I find it hard to believe there is a full sense of truth to the author's testimony. Oh, also, it's riddled with that. "I couldn't explain this or that blah blah blah." As if her lack of skepticism is all the support anyone would need to agree with the six other 'arguments'.
I am starting to see, though, that a lot of these 'former-atheist' types show a complete lack of knowledge of how to argue the existence of god to a non-believer. They sure know how to argue it to those who are pretending not to believe just to give the speaker an audience and tell them nobody in their right mind would be able to get through those and still be smelly, godless heathens, though. My cynicism leads me to think that anyone arguing to be a former-atheist and not giving the best god damned reasons I've ever heard for their conversion probably thinks that time the said the lord's name in vane counts as having been an atheist, and posting on a blog is to be their redemption.
Or would it be more likely that they were simply not very good at forming their own opinions from go?
Not familiar with the website or author, Marilyn Adamson, so if they are notoriously fluent in verbal diarrhea then apologies for the noise. But I had to click on the ad, because it just sounded so sure of itself. Lo and behold, I was treated to every tired and discounted argument I've ever heard, but what struck me as odd was that the author claimed to be an atheist herself, and one that actively sought to debate religion with believers. Then why, I thought, would one even bother to produce these arguments?
As someone who spent a period of time doing just that, debating religion, I can tell you that each and every one of those reasons is easily thrown away by even the most casual debaters. Here, let me show you the abridged version:
1-Irreducible Complexity/Life Tailored Earth
2-Something had to create the universe
3-Something has to enforce the laws of nature
4-More Irreducible Complexity, but only about DNA
5-Thinking about God's existence means God is making you think about him
6-Hurr Durr! Jesus!
So only four, really, as two are the same and the last one is the typical circular logic and chance to make a shout out that these people love so much.
Anyway, none of those arguments haven't been personally bashed by anyone who's ever at least gotten their toes wet in the whole debate, so I find it hard to believe there is a full sense of truth to the author's testimony. Oh, also, it's riddled with that. "I couldn't explain this or that blah blah blah." As if her lack of skepticism is all the support anyone would need to agree with the six other 'arguments'.
I am starting to see, though, that a lot of these 'former-atheist' types show a complete lack of knowledge of how to argue the existence of god to a non-believer. They sure know how to argue it to those who are pretending not to believe just to give the speaker an audience and tell them nobody in their right mind would be able to get through those and still be smelly, godless heathens, though. My cynicism leads me to think that anyone arguing to be a former-atheist and not giving the best god damned reasons I've ever heard for their conversion probably thinks that time the said the lord's name in vane counts as having been an atheist, and posting on a blog is to be their redemption.
Or would it be more likely that they were simply not very good at forming their own opinions from go?