Arguing to be the Smartest!
I'm just tired of arguing with Atheists who act like their beliefs were never influenced by others. They act like they know more than I do or even the scholars I refer to. I can admit that I don't know everything and so I quote a resource that I trust.
Arguing by False Authority
The worst argument I've heard is one from Richard Dawkins where he argues that when you are grown up in a Hindu family then you believe in Hinduism or if you were brought up Christian you are identified as Christian. He also argues that people shouldn't be "labelled" by their parents. Does he think he came to this "rationality" on his own? His argument is basically that religious people brainwash their children to believe in something against their will and innocence. He believes that it's wrong to indoctrinate children with religion because they are credulous to believe in anything. But on the other hand it's okay to indoctrinate them with his worldview. His worldview has been influenced by people he respected. This could be people with authority in science and academics. He quotes his favourite influences, doesn't he? As I trust in good credible bible scholars, so does he trust in credible scholars of his own. The difference is who we trust to be credible on the things we talk about--especially when it comes to the Bible.
How about Obama's open mockery of the Bible when he talked about public policy? He was so smug when he openly criticized verses like in Leviticus and Deuteronomy and the Sermon on the Mount, and condescends the people by saying, "Folks haven't been readin' their Bible!" He so arrogantly and sarcastically takes verses painfully out of context. He says it with a smug attitude laughing as if he understood the Bible--acting on false authority.
From the Defensive to the Offensive
About my first complaint, this type of Atheist will not be humble about their knowledge. It's immature. It's like the time I talked to an anarchist about the riots in London. You know what teenagers are like; excited to be part of some group, to feel like they belong, standing up against "The Man." It's ignorant and naive. Teenagers think they know everything and they think they're invincible and act out with illogical arguments. I'm only yet to be 26 in a few months and I can admit that I am naive about some things and ignorant. I won't try to prove myself to know more than someone else. And I won't make a claim unless I have good reason and evidence. I can share what I know and it's up to the listener to trust it or test it themselves. I can't throw it down their throat. But my point is that I am not gonna defend the Bible to these irrational Atheists, but be on the offensive to their illogical claims. I want them to think clearly about their worldview and arguments and show them where they went wrong in their logic and lead them to figure it out on their own.
God Bless
Michael
I'm just tired of arguing with Atheists who act like their beliefs were never influenced by others. They act like they know more than I do or even the scholars I refer to. I can admit that I don't know everything and so I quote a resource that I trust.
Arguing by False Authority
The worst argument I've heard is one from Richard Dawkins where he argues that when you are grown up in a Hindu family then you believe in Hinduism or if you were brought up Christian you are identified as Christian. He also argues that people shouldn't be "labelled" by their parents. Does he think he came to this "rationality" on his own? His argument is basically that religious people brainwash their children to believe in something against their will and innocence. He believes that it's wrong to indoctrinate children with religion because they are credulous to believe in anything. But on the other hand it's okay to indoctrinate them with his worldview. His worldview has been influenced by people he respected. This could be people with authority in science and academics. He quotes his favourite influences, doesn't he? As I trust in good credible bible scholars, so does he trust in credible scholars of his own. The difference is who we trust to be credible on the things we talk about--especially when it comes to the Bible.
How about Obama's open mockery of the Bible when he talked about public policy? He was so smug when he openly criticized verses like in Leviticus and Deuteronomy and the Sermon on the Mount, and condescends the people by saying, "Folks haven't been readin' their Bible!" He so arrogantly and sarcastically takes verses painfully out of context. He says it with a smug attitude laughing as if he understood the Bible--acting on false authority.
From the Defensive to the Offensive
About my first complaint, this type of Atheist will not be humble about their knowledge. It's immature. It's like the time I talked to an anarchist about the riots in London. You know what teenagers are like; excited to be part of some group, to feel like they belong, standing up against "The Man." It's ignorant and naive. Teenagers think they know everything and they think they're invincible and act out with illogical arguments. I'm only yet to be 26 in a few months and I can admit that I am naive about some things and ignorant. I won't try to prove myself to know more than someone else. And I won't make a claim unless I have good reason and evidence. I can share what I know and it's up to the listener to trust it or test it themselves. I can't throw it down their throat. But my point is that I am not gonna defend the Bible to these irrational Atheists, but be on the offensive to their illogical claims. I want them to think clearly about their worldview and arguments and show them where they went wrong in their logic and lead them to figure it out on their own.
God Bless
Michael
No comments:
Post a Comment