[bRaT]

Michael Coren's article is in the link below...i nearly fell out of my seat in awe of this nonsense getting published. You need to read this first.
http://fyitoronto.com/News/Columnist...5/1535176.html


My rather tentative reply follows:

Revisiting a Matter of Faith: An Atheist Replies to Michael Coren


It has come to my attention that Coren wrote an article that alleviated Christianity and simultaneously criticized atheism, along with its adherents on April 15th, 2006. Coren claimed that Russell knew little of Christianity and while this may or may not be true, it is the crux of my reply that Coren knows little about atheism. I shall begin my riposte by rebutting the claims made by Coren in chronological order that I object to.

It is with great disappointment that I cannot address Coren’s claim that his gratitude to God for his son is justified by “eyewitness accounts from neutral or even hostile sources, the ever-increasing tangible proof from archaeological digs” because he, rather conveniently, did not specify as to what evidences he speaks of and thus leaves the scrutiny of skeptics quite unfocused. As for right now, Coren merely supports these allegations with ipse dixit and therefore is impotent to anyone possessing a critical mind.

Returning to the allegation of Russell’s ignorance, Coren claims that Russell knew little of Christianity because he (Russell) would ask God why he did not provide humanity more evidence to his existence. Apparently, Coren assumes that Russell was not aware of the free will defense offered by apologists and claims God has not offered “absolute proof” because it would work against free will. Yet, Coren made a mistake. Russell never asked for “absolute proof” but more evidence to the existence of God than was presented. I am also left wondering as to why free will would be influenced by a greater amount of evidence to the existence of God? A stronger case for God would merely direct or convince more people to his existence. Similarly, scientific progress accumulates evidence in favor of macro evolution and many other theories but it does not influence a persons own free will. Indeed, if a person comes to believe in a theory through reasoning a stronger case, he does so through his own will and nothing else.

Following this point, Coren began to speak of Russell’s atheist/agnostic stance and the tool of logic. It is within these points do I charge Coren with misrepresenting atheism and its various forms. An etymological examination to the noun “atheism” reveals that it hails from the Greek word “atheos” and thus a (without) theos (god). To be an atheist, in its weakest form is to merely to be without the belief in a god. It does not have to entail that a person to know all there is to know. For, if we must take an “agnostic” stance to the existence of any notion because our capabilities of knowing are limited, then on what basis can we dismiss the idea of goblins, leprechauns and dragons? It is actually the variant of strong atheism which promulgates “God does not exist” but even this statement is not absolute; it is conditioned and the same applies to all existential propositions to that of which we know. To claim that the materialistic opposition to God implodes from exclusively quoting a brilliant but outdated skeptic is quite misleading to the readers and I suspect Coren is ignoring modern agents of the naturalist worldview that is gaining great prestige within the philosophy of religion.

Coren also claimed that he could reflect certain claims that Christianity causes war by addressing allegedly atheistic political figures such as Hitler that have killed millions of people. I share Coren’s sentiment that religion did not cause war and on the other hand I also deny that atheism caused the massacre of millions. Yet, I refuse to grant Coren the privilege, I’m sure, of referring to Hitler as an atheist. Adolf was probably a theist and I believe he says within Mein Kampf that "faith is the sole foundation of a moral attitude". You could say that Hitler was pretending to be religious to sway his Nazi followers, but yet, that would show that the Nazi base, the means of the destruction, were largely theistic. And, I am sure that many who believe in an atheistic Hitler will quote him to such claims as to call Christianity a “lie” or a “disease” but these claims are largely bogus and I encourage readers to look into the most scholarly supported version of Hitler’s Table Talk: the Henry Picker edition. You will find that many of these anti-Christian quotes are simple redactions or mistranslations of the text.

Coren also claims that no physical science has ever produced evidence that conflicts with the Christian belief. A claim is left baseless—again—and I feel that the only reason why this claim is tenable is due to the constant retrofitting performed by some Christian apologetics that use literary devices such as symbolism and ****phors to reconcile scripture to the advances of science. There are far more militant atheists who would love to tear this claim a new rectum and I will leave that to those who are more scientifically inclined. However, I believe a far more interesting question is this: how many scientific discoveries have found the cause of any phenomenon to be supernatural? The answer is this: None. Now, of course this does not mean that there is no such thing as the supernatural but that naturalism has a far more reliable track record of scientific truth and the only way to possibly alleviate this truism is to claim that the scientific way is conducted in a methodological manner that can only result in naturalistic explanations. Such a claim is currently debated and I leave the option of resurrecting that debate with Coren. Finally, even if science has not produced evidence that conflicts with Christian theism, it would be quite fallacious to propose that—as Coren did—science is “on the side of angels”. Following this logic, I can equally claim that science is “on the side” of atheism because it has not produced conflicting evidence. Is the possible concept of neutrality foreign to Coren?

My last objection pertains to the historicity of Church and Science relations and that I also deny Christianity to be supporting science for “tens of centuries” but I have grown tired of this nonsense and wish to waste no further time. Coren seems to strive on the hope that his readers lack the critical thinking skills necessary to doubt him. The humor of Coren’s article is this: not only is believing in Christianity a matter of faith but so is adopting his silly arguments.

[Sambo234]

the article written by this guy

seems like it belonged in his blog rather than being published...

[bRaT]

Originally Posted by Sambo234

the article written by this guy

seems like it belonged in his blog rather than being published...

No, it was in the Toronto Sun. Afterwards, i seen letters to the editor that thanked him for justfying the christian faith.

[TheSuperunknown]

I am also left wondering as to why free will would be influenced by a greater amount of evidence to the existence of God? A stronger case for God would merely direct or convince more people to his existence.

Free will would be impacted and you concede as much in this statement. By directing more people to him through "hard" evidence would put people in the position of having to accept or otherwise be a fool by rejecting this evidence before them. If there is incontrovertible evidence for something (Airplanes, traffic lights, WWII, etc.) are you operating by free will in rejecting its existence? No, you're being a fool and will likely be thought to be lacking the ability to think at all.

For, if we must take an “agnostic” stance to the existence of any notion because our capabilities of knowing are limited, then on what basis can we dismiss the idea of goblins, leprechauns and dragons?

Common sense. The history of these things lie in admitted stories by authors made-up for entertainment pleasure. While there are people who will say the same thing about religion, it is simply a non-sequitur and a straw man argument to boot.

Yet, I refuse to grant Coren the privilege, I’m sure, of referring to Hitler as an atheist. Adolf was probably a theist and I believe he says within Mein Kampf that "faith is the sole foundation of a moral attitude".

And I refuse to grant you the privilege of referring to Hitler as a theist. In what regard can anything Hitler have done be based in a belief in God. More likely, he found life disposable, without meaning, and a theist would certainly not think like that.

Finally, even if science has not produced evidence that conflicts with Christian theism, it would be quite fallacious to propose that—as Coren did—science is “on the side of angels”. Following this logic, I can equally claim that science is “on the side” of atheism because it has not produced conflicting evidence. Is the possible concept of neutrality foreign to Coren?

His point is simply that science and Christianity can coexist and are not mutually exclusive. His timeline may or may not be accurate but it does not negate the premise of his statement. Consider it sales puffing.

[t-dizzle]

First natural question that came to me first was Brat do you always speak of yourself in the third person?

" brat says"

"brat replies"

"brat answers"

[kartaron]

To be an atheist, in its weakest form is to merely to be without the belief in a god. It does not have to entail that a person to know all there is to know. For, if we must take an “agnostic” stance to the existence of any notion because our capabilities of knowing are limited, then on what basis can we dismiss the idea of goblins, leprechauns and dragons?

You cant try to prove a negative by saying the discovery of evidence is impossible.

The humor of Coren’s article is this: not only is believing in Christianity a matter of faith but so is adopting his silly arguments.

As is Atheism since he put forward no argument to the contrary except his own biased association between God and goblins.

[bRaT]

Originally Posted by TheSuperunknown

Free will would be impacted and you concede as much in this statement. By directing more people to him through "hard" evidence would put people in the position of having to accept or otherwise be a fool by rejecting this evidence before them. If there is incontrovertible evidence for something (Airplanes, traffic lights, WWII, etc.) are you operating by free will in rejecting its existence? No, you're being a fool and will likely be thought to be lacking the ability to think at all.


Again here with the poor logic. It was never asked for incontrovertible evidence but a stronger case. and, i certainly do not see why refusing to believe something that is some blatantly true as not an act within your own free will. Whether or not he may be refered to as fool to believe such or "lacking the ability to think at all" has no bearing on free will. If i sat down and denied to you the existence of WW2 through ****physical ramblings, would you say i was not with my own free will? Do you even understand the meaning of the term?


Common sense. The history of these things lie in admitted stories by authors made-up for entertainment pleasure. While there are people who will say the same thing about religion, it is simply a non-sequitur and a straw man argument to boot.


I could just as easily say that since we have not checked in all of the universe, or checked in X manner, we could never promulagte the non-existence of goblins. its the whole, you can never prove a negative rant and delves heavily into the epistemology.

And I refuse to grant you the privilege of referring to Hitler as a theist. In what regard can anything Hitler have done be based in a belief in God. More likely, he found life disposable, without meaning, and a theist would certainly not think like that.


Have you done any research on the subject?


His point is simply that science and Christianity can coexist and are not mutually exclusive. His timeline may or may not be accurate but it does not negate the premise of his statement. Consider it sales puffing.

There is no reason to believe he meant what you claim. he stated simply " Again, logic is on the side of the angels. As is science. " And that is blatantly untrue. he said on the side and not at the side.

[bRaT]

Originally Posted by kartaron

You cant try to prove a negative by saying the discovery of evidence is impossible.


I dont think that was my message.
Read: http://www.infidels.org/library/mode...er/theory.html

As is Atheism since he put forward no argument to the contrary except his own biased association between God and goblins.


I wasn't aware I have to provide an argument to the contrary.

bold.

[bRaT]

Originally Posted by t-dizzle

First natural question that came to me first was Brat do you always speak of yourself in the third person?

" brat says"

"brat replies"

"brat answers"

brat is getting upset

[TheSuperunknown]

Originally Posted by bRaT

There is no reason to believe he meant what you claim. he stated simply " Again, logic is on the side of the angels. As is science. " And that is blatantly untrue. he sat on the side and not at the side.

He is advocating a position and is giving an opinion on it. The point of his article was not to be neutral but to push his position, it doesn't makes sense that he would equivocate on the science issue. I agree that proving such an assertion. Whether it is true or not is certainly up for debate.