Steve Shives demonstrates the stupidity of Christian Apologetics, and gives some great debunking of it.

I've been a fan of Steve Shives's work into reading and interpreting Christian Apologetics in a rationalist manner.

Steve is a very rational person and he pretty much destroys most of Christian Apologetics.

Here is Steve's appraisal of "I Don't Have Enough Faith To Be an Atheist" by Norman L. Geisler and Frank Turek. He exposes the writer's biases, bigotry and naivety.

Views: 323


You need to be a member of Atheist Nexus to add comments!

Join Atheist Nexus

Comment by Dyslexic's DOG on January 9, 2015 at 11:20pm

True Joan,

Much of science took place in Catholic basements and vineyards as they thought scientific knowledge and research would help them find god, as well as produce the best wine.


I chose that particular reading of Steve Shives, because Turek and Geisler cover almost the entire scope of current apologetic arguments, from Intelligent Design to the Ontological Argument, so Steve gives his debunking on all those arguments.

It also touches on the presuppositional argument which as Steve points out is entirely circular and nonsensical, so it is an argument that can be entirely dismissed and doesn't warrant a rational reply.

Some theists may be stupid enough to use it though, but for the most part, I ignore it, or state, I presuppose the existence of Thor, and assert you cannot have knowledge of thunderstorms without a belief in Thor.

Moi: Have you knowledge of and witnessed a thunderstorm?

Theist: Yes

Moi: Then you must believe in Thor.

Theist: I believe in Jesus, not Thor.

Moi: Ahh, but you must secretly believe in Thor, otherwise you would not know thunderstorms, so, you just deny your belief in Thor, to not appear irrational.

It's the same argument, an absurd circular reasoning, assertion from ignorance.

Comment by Joan Denoo on January 8, 2015 at 6:53pm

OOPPSS poorly formed sentence. It should read:

People can laugh at education, and find others that dismiss education as confirmation of their bias.

Comment by Joan Denoo on January 8, 2015 at 6:47pm

I haven't watched Steve's video here, yet. And want to give you my impression before I watch Steve's response. 

Frank Turek, to me, reads like he is a very angry adolescent that has been spoiled outrageously by his mother and father and expects the world to give him a living. Now, to watch Steve's opinion. 

I watched 1 of 16. I am not surprised Steve comments about Turek's dismissal of education and disregard for the professor who didn't know the answer about whether god existed or not. The job of a professor is to pass along what is known, and engage in a search of the unknown. Everyone I knew who taught at the college or university level searched for answers to unanswered questions. 

For me, education was to discover why individuals behave the way they do, then why organizations function as they do, then how to be a change agent for individuals, relationships, and systems. In the process, I became aware of the motivators at each level that I would not have known at a lower level of learning. I could have gone through life repeating the behaviors of those who went before me. People can laugh at education, and find others that dismiss education to confirmation their bias. In reality, at least as I see it. It requires ignorance to maintain and perpetuate the status quo. It takes thinking at a deeper level to make breakthroughs at all levels of performance. 

Comment by Loren Miller on January 8, 2015 at 3:57pm

Of course.  Kevin Sorbo was purely a straw-man atheist, and any atheist who can be bothered to think about WHY they are atheist would see it in a second.

This is a point Steve has made repeatedly, too - that these books are NOT aimed at atheists, but at believers, as a means of reassuring them that they have it right, and it doesn't take long reading one to recognize that sorry fact.

Comment by Dyslexic's DOG on January 8, 2015 at 3:51pm

I like how the whimsical professor (Kevin Sorbo) in the movie, fails to cover even the most basic refutations of those arguments presented by the first year student.

Essentially demonstrating to any rational viewer that the professor character's knowledge has been seriously limited by the writer, so as to make him appear befuddled and defeated.

Had Steve Shives written the professor's part, that student's head would be spinning and he would have to find his seat and shut-the-fuck-up or look like a total lunatic to the rest of the class.


Comment by Loren Miller on January 8, 2015 at 3:43pm

I've noticed that as well.  There are the occasional "innovations," such as the "roadrunner argument" which Steve notes in one of the books he's reviewed (though I can't remember which one), but when it comes to christian apologetics, there really doesn't seem to be any new thing under the sun.

When you consider that their holy book hasn't changed in any meaningful fashion since it was first written down, I can't say that I'm surprised.

Comment by Dyslexic's DOG on January 8, 2015 at 3:39pm

Though Loren, the Movie "god Is Not Dead" defeats itself, much of the apologetics used is exactly the same as "I Don't Have Enough Faith To Be An Atheist", which sort of covers all current apologetic arguments.  I watched the arguments in the movie and there is nothing different.

Steve will be repeating much of what he said in this series.

There is nothing new in apologetics, so I think Steve has pretty much covered all he is likely to encounter, with only subtle differences in how the authors approach those apologetic arguments.

But, essentially, they are all the same brand of Nonsense.

Comment by Loren Miller on January 8, 2015 at 11:23am

Steve has great game as it comes to dismantling christian apologetics.  He's currently working on Rice Broocks' God's Not Dead ... and two chapters in, Mr. Broocks is NOT holding up well!



Update Your Membership :



Nexus on Social Media:

© 2019   Atheist Nexus. All rights reserved. Admin: The Nexus Group.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service