It's not fair by any sensible definition of the word, but then again, Christians can't win if they play fair.

If we can't criticize and reject Christianity until we've read and studied all there is to know about it, then isn't it only fair that we apply this standard to other religions as well? Shouldn't we be required to read the Koran, the Vedas, the Talmud, etc. etc. in addition to the Bible? And shouldn't YOU be required to read and study everything ever written about atheism before you can criticize and reject it? Well, lucky for you, you can start right now with this blog, and when you're done with it, you can follow the links to all the other atheist blogs out there. And don't forget all the books that have been written about atheism as well. Happy reading! Let me know when you're done!

It seems that the general trend among some who are amateur apologetics is to first assume something's true, and then find where the evidence for it would be if they had looked, and then finally assume that the evidence actually exists. (This is the inverse of the way it should be.) This would explain why many work so hard to interpret scripture cautiously (in order to stay consistent), and it would also explain why when Brock "threw off the yoke of religion and read the Bible again, it was like [he] was reading it for the first time."

I can't help but laugh at the "Creationist Almost Discovers The Sun" post. Also, I found it extremely delightful to be linked to a Super Smash Bros. forum (a favorite game of mine) from my favorite blog, Daylight Atheism. I have that "It's a small world" feeling now.

snex: "not only do scientists know about it, but we see it every day. its called the sun." Reality Check ++

You will not understand what I am talking about for it requires diligent Bible study and earnest, honest prayer - none of this will you do for your minds are made-up.

If there were any actual evidence we'd be willing to change our minds but there isn't so we won't.

But either way, your religion has no special claim to truth that no other religion has so a Muslim or a Hindu could use the arguments you're using and they would be no less valid.

Jonh:

I merely state the obvious, that the literal Bible is full of flaws(as you have attested ad nauseaum) Nobody will ever find Noah's Ark or any other Biblical artifacts. Archaeologists will never find any historical evidence of the carnal existance of Moses.

Yes, so why should we expect bible study to be anything other than a waste of time?

I mean if the book is that error prone how can you expect to find any god in it or any evidence that there is a god (we can't even trust it to tell us what π is).

John:

Yet, The Bible is The Way to know God.

So despite the emperor clearly not wearing any clothes we can still know of the invisible fabrics he wears?

John:

Keep-up your petty arguments with Christians who are too lazy to study The Word - it's an argument you will always win; sort of like arguing with an eight year old who believes in Santa Claus.

Arguing with any religious believer is like arguing with a kid who believes in Santa Claus since they both have the same amount of evidence on their side.

John:

Enjoy your very temporary victories, atheism is a dying religion.

Two problems there.

1. Atheism isn't dying it all but is actually taking over.
2. Atheism isn't a religion.

John:

Headline from last weeks Sunday tribune;" Jesus Rising in China."

China is a mostly backwards dictatorship with a low standard of living and most of the population practising religions other than Christianity (despite what the government there says).

The gains that Christians are making in China and other third world countries aren't at the expense of atheism but at the expense of other religions whilst the gains that are made by atheism happen to be in the west and happen to come at the expense of Christianity (among all other religions). Once the standard of living in the third world rises to that of the first world we can expect to see them follow the same path away from religion that the west is following right now.

John:

cu all in heaven

No, we won't be seeing each other in a place that doesn't exist.

You might want to read up on the Courtier's reply.

And still, atheists are expected to make experts of ourselves, and study every arcane piece of theology, before we reject religion. Well, why the hell should we, when the actual experts don't even bother? (Yes, I know, we should because we don't want to imitate our opponents and argue out of ignorance... but it still bugs me.)

And John is making a standard fallacy in debates about religion: "You're not arguing against my particular version of religion -- therefore your argument is invalid."

Different versions of religion require different arguments against them. Every single piece of atheist argument can't be expected to refute every single religious belief on the planet. Ebon is not making up straw men to argue against here. He's citing examples of real people and real arguments that they make. There are different arguments against non- literal beliefs... and many of us, including Ebon, have made them at great length. He just didn't make them in this piece.

All is vanity - as the Bible verse above states, it has already happened.

cu all in heaven