-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Will Atheism Ever Be The Dominant Religion?
- Thread starter Jeremiahcp
- Start date
leibowde84
Veteran Member
I am very familiar with the work of Norman Geisler and Frank Turek. I have heard countless debates with Frank Turek, who resorts to logically fallacious arguments and incorrect assumptions to make his point (the book you cited clearly utilizes the "God of the gaps" or Arguments from ignorance, attempting to use a current lack of natural explanation as evidence for God). One obvious one here is the fact that he uses an incorrect meaning for the term "atheism" in order to make it easier for him to argue against it.
Interesting reference. Go to the book reviews and read what the 10% said who decided the book was junk. That's about the same number of atheists in general society.
BilliardsBall
Veteran Member
The book has outstanding references and citations, and builds upon several foundations of logic.
BilliardsBall
Veteran Member
You make it sound as though the book's sole argument is an argument from ignorance. You haven't read the book, I take it.
BilliardsBall..... Incidentally, the greatest frustration I've found in life seems to be that there will always be an opposite point of view or sentiment. Search as I have, it seems impossible to get an unqualified position on anything....... 'Yes, but', seems to start so many discussions. I think we all want to know and to experience some final answers, and finality to situations we've encountered. I remember well being 13 and thinking that someday I would know the answers to the questions I had...... alas, domage as they say in France.
leibowde84
Veteran Member
I have actually.
BilliardsBall
Veteran Member
Then why misstate the book? It contains multiple arguments, including verifying the veracity of the Bible from a preponderance of archaeology!
leibowde84
Veteran Member
But, it starts with the assumption that the Bible is accurate rather than trying to find contradicting evidence. In science, scientists constantly try to disprove the theories of others. It isn't scientific in any way shape or form to only try to find evidence that supports its authenticity.
Apologes
Active Member
You're generalizing both ways, idealizing atheists while dissing the theists. Plent of irrational atheists out there as well as plenty of rational theists.
Not one group is composed of wholly irrational people.
I agree, although religion is, at base, irrational (and that is its goal).
But the post you quoted was in response to a post that claimed that atheists ignore the emotional side of life and don't value them. That is much worse that simply claiming that a belief in a supernatural isn't based on rationality.
BilliardsBall
Veteran Member
I read the book also! The thesis of the book was absolutely NOT that assumption, but rather, an attempt to use explanatory power to describe how the universe came to be and etc. without any God and then driving forward. As a matter of fact, the case for biblical accuracy was left off for many chapters so that it arrives in the book only after we've begun from a non-assumptive viewpoint. The forward and opening chapters described this movement!
By the way, your statement that we should use science to constantly disprove the theories of others needs to apply equally to Christians as well as non-Christians! The book did not begin with "God exists" but if it didn't, it would be working to "constantly disprove the theories" of atheists, right? A double standard is showing here from you.