a kinda new question going around

Post links to video, audio, images or other media items. Funny or informative

a kinda new question going around

Postby dobbie » Fri Feb 01, 2013 5:42 pm

A vogue is going around with some Christian apologists. They ask the question "Could you be wrong about everything you claim to know?"

If the atheist answers, "Yes," the apologist says, "Then you don't know anything for sure."

Well, I say if the atheist answers "Yes," then the atheist could be wrong about his "Yes" claim--therefore, since he is wrong about saying he could be wrong, the atheist does know things for sure!

For that reason, it's not a very good question to ask.

Plus, the question and the answer to it doesn't bring anybody any closer to proving that the Christian God exists. In this case, all the Christian apologist does is to say that he himself has a special revelation from God and to claim that he knows something for sure, because of the revelation.

I say that it's unnecessary for the Christian apologist to ask, "Could you be wrong about everything you claim to know?" The apologist should just cut to the chase and claim God sent a special revelation to him/her. And then, I suppose, expect others to believe him/her.

In other words, I say the apologist's question, "Could you be wrong about everything you claim to know," hasn't anything to do with telling whether Jesus is real. As an approach to support Christianity, the question fails to convince anybody about the Christian doctrine.

Here's an example of the question:
Eric Hovind vs. 6th Grade Atheist
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HhDPrP-tpeo

So, any thoughts anyone?
dobbie
 
Posts: 362
Joined: Tue Jan 20, 2009 6:31 am
Location: California

Re: a kinda new question going around

Postby McIago » Sat Feb 02, 2013 1:21 am

Here's how I would answer the question.

Only fundamentalists are afraid of being wrong or of having to rethink beliefs. To a scientific rationalist or scientist truth is more important than adhering to a rigid and unchanging viewpoint. If a belief, idea or theory fails under investigation, there is no shame in modifying or discarding it and adopting a new one closer to the truth.

Truth, to scientific rationalist people, is an understanding of reality as defined by objective and falsifiable tests. Not only is there no disgrace in modifying or abandoning a theory, the disgrace would be failing to do so in order to cling desperately to a position proven false. Those who cling to positions proven false by objective criteria time after time, are ignoring reality and truth in favor of unreality and false beliefs. The most pitiful and deluded folks are End-timers. who continue to believe and prophesy the coming of Armageddon after so many dismal, humiliating public failures.
I am, therefore I think.
McIago
 
Posts: 15
Joined: Sat Feb 05, 2011 2:50 am
Location: Boston, MA, USA

Re: a kinda new question going around

Postby sepia » Sat Feb 02, 2013 1:02 pm

I love the question "Could there be something which debunks everything you belief to know?" Answer: "No, because it must exist, to debunk something. So I still can be sure, that something exists."

This global scepticism also exists intependent from apologetics, e.g. Hans Albert. I think this is far more honest and interesting. But it is still self refuting: I have at least to do if I knew something to make an argument. So global scepticsim can't be supported by arguments. It only can be accepted without arguments and then we are finished befor we even can come to logic.
sepia
 
Posts: 112
Joined: Sat Jun 02, 2012 2:38 pm
Location: austria


Return to Media Madness

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron