I've seen this countless times.
Jan 16, 2019 13:54:30 #
The "I don't knower"'s philosophical framework:
Start with the presupposition that there is no evidence nor proof of Gods existence.
Argue that all arguments and inferences provided by theists are not sound, not based on scientific evidence, and as such, not worthy of being accepted.
Claim that current human knowledge does not justify to make secure, highly probable conclusions of origins, based on logic and evidence.
Argue that the current scientific research does not yet have all answers, but the bits we have, tend to point to the fact that no God is required.
Start with the convincement that moral truths based on Christian morality exist, even if in reality only based on social common sense.
Remove the few bits of the Christian moral code you don't like.
Ignore the fact that you are the byproduct of an evolutionary accident. As Darwin said: How can convictions of man's mind, which has been developed from the mind of the lower animals, be of any value or at all trustworthy? Would anyone trust in the convictions of a monkey's mind, if there are any convictions in such a mind? As such, try to convince others of your viewpoint, even if your thoughts are not trustworthy.
Argue that we can self-invent and create meaning for our existence.
Do poke holes in the believer's faith, find inconsistencies in the Bible, and ridicule that it was written by primitive sheepherders, claiming that snakes and donkeys talked, and virgins birth.
Deny that abiogenesis is impossible ( science is working on it), outline that evolution is a fact, based on wide consensus amongst professional biologists, and that the Dover trial demonstrated, that there is no irreducible complexity in biological systems, nor that the DNA stores literally codified information (it's just an analogy).
Do not grant the same skepticism to a worldview without God.
Claim that all religions, with their gods, their demi-gods, and their prophets, their messiahs and their saints, were created by the prejudiced fancy of men who had not attained the full development and full possession of their faculties.
Claim that there is no evidence of Christ's historicity, and even less his resurrection.
Claim that faith-based claims are always blind.
Second Dawkins, and portray the God of the Bible, in special the old testament, as jealous, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, capriciously malevolent bully.
Argue about how many wars have been conducted in the name of Christianity.
Start with the presupposition that there is no evidence nor proof of Gods existence.
Argue that all arguments and inferences provided by theists are not sound, not based on scientific evidence, and as such, not worthy of being accepted.
Claim that current human knowledge does not justify to make secure, highly probable conclusions of origins, based on logic and evidence.
Argue that the current scientific research does not yet have all answers, but the bits we have, tend to point to the fact that no God is required.
Start with the convincement that moral truths based on Christian morality exist, even if in reality only based on social common sense.
Remove the few bits of the Christian moral code you don't like.
Ignore the fact that you are the byproduct of an evolutionary accident. As Darwin said: How can convictions of man's mind, which has been developed from the mind of the lower animals, be of any value or at all trustworthy? Would anyone trust in the convictions of a monkey's mind, if there are any convictions in such a mind? As such, try to convince others of your viewpoint, even if your thoughts are not trustworthy.
Argue that we can self-invent and create meaning for our existence.
Do poke holes in the believer's faith, find inconsistencies in the Bible, and ridicule that it was written by primitive sheepherders, claiming that snakes and donkeys talked, and virgins birth.
Deny that abiogenesis is impossible ( science is working on it), outline that evolution is a fact, based on wide consensus amongst professional biologists, and that the Dover trial demonstrated, that there is no irreducible complexity in biological systems, nor that the DNA stores literally codified information (it's just an analogy).
Do not grant the same skepticism to a worldview without God.
Claim that all religions, with their gods, their demi-gods, and their prophets, their messiahs and their saints, were created by the prejudiced fancy of men who had not attained the full development and full possession of their faculties.
Claim that there is no evidence of Christ's historicity, and even less his resurrection.
Claim that faith-based claims are always blind.
Second Dawkins, and portray the God of the Bible, in special the old testament, as jealous, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, capriciously malevolent bully.
Argue about how many wars have been conducted in the name of Christianity.
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.