Quite fun to watch, really.

You are trying so hard to sound intelligent… it is transparent.

You and your arguments lose authenticity when you reach for clichéd jargon or specialized concepts and catch phrases… your choice of jargon reveals your weakness.

Don’t hide behind obscure words and concepts not readily know to others involved in an argument. If you’re really concerned about your readers, don’t use words in an effort to show off your intelligence. Your are all about communicating an argument with the reader, (which you have failed to do in the confines of your statements) and not about you.

I am nothing like Ray Comfort, and if you think this is just an act, deal with my arguments instead of offering an ad hominem. You have also assumed that I am a creationist, how do you know this? Did you ask me?

You are the one who cannot make sense of reality. Your arguments are sophomoric and pedantic and reak of sophistry.

“Uniformity of nature [...]“? What? Your argument doesn’t make any sense.

It’s like this: my worldview says that we’re here by chance, and though science is never perfect, it’s the greatest tool we have. I’d like to see creationists complain about evolution when they’ve got an antibiotic resistant superbug. But that never happens, why’s that? Why not just pray?

Because when you just pray, people die. Science changed that.

Furthermore, you’re just another Ray Comfort trying to act like you’re an intellectual superior. In reality, you, like most creationists, are nothing but a coward bound by superstition you can’t justify but to undermine the very workings of reality.

That’s what the rats ass thinks about yourself.

Atheism has its own set of presuppositions, what you are asserting is patently false. The Christian theist has presuppositons that he or she brings to the table just as the atheist does.

In an ultimate sense what you are saying is that the test of truth is based on empirical observation, a position that Plato rightly refuted centuries ago.

Since you mentioned science and seem to rail on Creationism perhaps you need to be reminded that science is based on inductive inference and therefore can never be certain of anything. Science is a best guess but an honest scientist has to admit that even the best induction is only probablistic.

Furthermore, your atheism does not provide for the uniformity of nature that is so desperately needed by science. In a universe that has no specific order or design the uniformity of nature and your use of inductive inference is a non-sequitar.

Say what you will about Christians and creationism I really don’t give a rats’ ass. But remember epistemologically your worldview reduces to absurdity. You use immaterial invariant abstract laws of logic in order to attempt to argue against an immaterial invariant Deity, this is my definition of foolishness.

When you say “religion” are you referring to Christianity specifically or generically for theism?

Truth be told, atheism is much different. Atheism isn’t a religion. There’s no central character, no set of beliefs…

The main difference between support for atheism and religion is that religion tells you certain FACTS which you can’t deny. In religion, you can accept that the big bang occurred, but god did it.

With atheism, we have everything around us. We see the universe and question every aspect of how it got here. As one person put it, “We have the fossils, we win.”

Religion has the facts and builds the world around it. Atheism has nothing but the facts found in the world around it. That’s the difference.

I enjoy this sort of dialog. Actually I think Wikipedia might be misrepresenting the scripture in this case. The first thing that 1 Peter 3:15 calls the Christian to do is to exalt Christ as Lord, and be ready to give an answer for the hope that you have. (Admittedly, this is a paraphrase as well).

The point is, apologetics is employed *when* someone asks you why you have hope, you are to be ready with an answer. I think there is a misconception that this is the same as evangelism. The two certainly go together but they are not one in the same.

Why then is *not* lame to blog or write about reasons for atheism? Wouldn’t atheism or agnosticism be subject to the same criticism? In other words if it is lame for the Christian apologist would not it be lame for the non-Christian as well?

The First Epistle of Peter (3:15) declares that Christians must be ready to give a reason for their faith. Christian apologetics are designed to present non-Christians with reasons to adopt the Christian faith or to strengthen the belief of current Christians. Also, apologetics within the Christian community provide arguments that describe, support and strengthen the doctrinal and moral tenets of the Christian faith.

That’s lame. Presenting non-Christians with reasons to adopt the Christian faith sums up my point of contention within this train of thought.