An individual sent me an email and asked me if I could explain the meme that was on, I am an Atheist Facebook page. I said sure, first stop reading that page. It is a waste of time to try to change their opinion on anything. They enjoy taking new people and chewing them up and spiting them out. If you happen to be lucky enough to present rational arguments to counter them, they will censor you from posting on their page. So what follows is my critique of their misconceptions with the meme.
I am an Atheist added a new photo. August 4
Richard, Joseph you shouldn’t need to put it ‘in context’ August 4 at 4:16pm
Brian Ever notice how every Christian has the “right” interpretation? August 4 at 6:50pm
Faith That’s an excellent piece. August 4 at 10:47pm
Lee I’ve been saying that for ages. Particularly about how, if Islam is a peaceful religion, then how come there is an interpretation of it which causes extremism to the extent that murder and terrorism can be ‘justified’ in said interpretations?
The absolute truth is there is NO peaceful religion, just brainwashed humans. No other species on the planet requires this invention of control for misplaced reassurance! August 5 at 5:57am
Steven Exactly. August 5 at 9:35am
Ok, let us begin to point out where and how they are wrong once again. The Merriam –Webster dictionary definition of apologetics has two parts: 1) systematic argumentative discourse in defense (as of a doctrine) and 2) a branch of theology devoted to the defense of the divine origin and authority of Christianity.
The liberal Wikipedia defines it thusly: “Apologetics (from Greek ἀπολογία, “speaking in defense”) is the discipline of defending a position (often religious) through the systematic use of information. Early Christian writers (c. 120–220) who defended their faith against critics and recommended their faith to outsiders were called apologists. In political usage, apologetics is used in a negative fashion to describe the defense of controversial actions or policies, like terrorism or politically repressive governments”
In no way does the definitions say or imply that the apologetic individual is attempting to explain any kind of an imperfection of thought or belief. That belief comes from a person who is apologizing: “express regret for something that one has done wrong” or someone who is being apologetic (which is the present participle of the verb be). As usual, the atheists mix up the use of the language to slant things to their belief.
Nowhere in the Bible does it say that anyone’s interpretation is perfect. One feature of the process of interpreting the Bible is the Bible’s own ability to shed light on its meaning. The Holy Spirit caused the Bible to be written with the specific intention that people would be able to understand its message. Consequently, the Bible shares in common with other books the basic characteristics that one might expect any piece of written communication to possess. It utilizes the same laws of thought and language, and it assumes that the honest, sincere, dedicated student can arrive at the meanings intended by the Author.
The Bible is filled with statements that presuppose (and, in fact, absolutely demand) that we reason correctly, weigh evidence, and come to correct conclusions regarding God’s will. Through Isaiah, God beckoned: “Come now, and let us reason together” (1:18), and “State your case, that you may be acquitted” (43:26). The noble Bereans “searched the Scriptures daily to find out whether these things were so” (Acts 17:11). Paul said he was appointed for “the defense of the gospel” (Philippians 1:17). He insisted that the Thessalonians “test all things; hold fast what is good” (1 Thessalonians 5:21). He told Timothy to rightly divide the word of truth and to correct those who were in opposition (2 Timothy 2:15,25). Peter urged us to “always be ready to give a defense to everyone who asks you a reason for the hope that is in you” (1 Peter 3:15). John warned: “Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits, whether they are of God; because many false prophets have gone out into the world” (1 John 4:1). And Jude said that we must “contend earnestly for the faith” (Jude 3).
Perhaps the greatest deterrent to a proper interpretation of the Bible is the widespread and growing sense of uncertainty in the acquisition of absolute truth. American civilization has been inundated with pluralism, and has been brow-beaten into accepting the notion that one belief is as good as another, and that it really does not matter what one believes. Since so many people hold to so many conflicting beliefs, it is commonly thought that no one should be so intolerant, arrogant, and mean-spirited as to think that he has a corner on truth. One belief is as good as another, so we are told. And the same principle applies to religion, ethics, and virtually every other facet of human existence. Agnosticism (the philosophical posture that insists that one cannot know) has literally come to dominate our society. Perhaps the majority of Americans now feel that one cannot know whether the God of the Bible exists, whether the Bible is the one and only Word of God, whether Christianity is the only true religion, or whether New Testament Christianity is distinguishable from denominationalism.
I really like the three unsubstantiated fallacies in the statement by Lee. First, he brings up Islam and conflates it with Christianity. Islam is more a social, political religious system of beliefs than it is a religion. And he can look that up if he wishes.
Then he says, “The absolute truth is there is NO peaceful religion, just brainwashed humans.” When you considered all the Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus, Catholics, Mormons, Protestants, Christians and other peoples who believe in some form of a deity, you are talking about 80% of the world’s population. Is he certain he has not been brainwashed into non-belief.
Then he makes this evillutionist statement, “No other species on the planet requires this invention of control for misplaced reassurance! “ No other species on this planet has the capability of wondering who and why they are. Even if you believe in pond scum to persons evillution, you can’t prove that any other species has the mental capacity to wonder.
Just remember, if you want to continue to debate with atheists, they are experts at using fallacious logical arguments. Study up at: http://commfaculty.fullerton.edu/rgass/fallacy3211.htm and http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/skeptic/arguments.html