Ted Peterson
asked:
Why does this apologist have to use a bad definition of atheism in order to make his case.. like all apologists seem to need to do? Why can't they just accept that when someone tells them they are wrong, they are just using logic and reason? Shouldn't he be mad at logic and reason, and not create some "mysterious atheistic belief system" that doesn't exist in order to have something to attack?
To answer questions about
The Atheist Who Didn't Exist,
please sign up.
Rod Horncastle
I'm not convinced this IS a bad definition of atheism. I have yet to meet an atheist who carefully criticizes atheism. They all seem to ASSUME it is a worthy default position of neutrality - but it's clearly NOT. It has tons of baggage that's very easy to see as it moves into your house for a long stay.
Chuck
Unfortunately, reason and logic is not the same thing as objective truth. What is reasonable and logical has become subjective opinion. "It's 'scientific' if I say it is and if you disagree, you are ignorant and self delusional."
It would nice if we could sit down and discuss these life changing matters over a caramel macchiato, but inevitably someone starts yelling.
It would nice if we could sit down and discuss these life changing matters over a caramel macchiato, but inevitably someone starts yelling.
Nelson
We favour the definition used by academic philosophers. The definition that the atheist community prefers is obscure and irrational - Bannister explores why such a definition is nonsense in his book.
Minda Carpenter
It's easier to nook down a straw man than address real arguments so that's what nearly every apologist does.
About Goodreads Q&A
Ask and answer questions about books!
You can pose questions to the Goodreads community with Reader Q&A, or ask your favorite author a question with Ask the Author.
See Featured Authors Answering Questions
Learn more
