A Gullible Atheist

Okay, so I just had to check out JT Eberhard, the atheist who backed out of some internet debate when asked to define evidence.  Eberhard describes himself as “an atheist activist who writes a blog on the Patheos network.”  Like I’ve been saying people – Gnus are activists.

Anyway, let’s have a quick look at one of his front page postings entitled, “Christians are gullible”  (note added: it was on the front page when I wrote this). He shares his keen insight as follows:

But being gullible when we have the capacity to do better is something for which we should feel ashamed.  For those who think someone rose from the dead, you’re damn right you should be ashamed of that belief.  It’s ridiculous.  It cannot be defended.

Well that just settles it.  JT Eberhard, atheist activist who writes a blog for Patheos, says the resurrection is just ridiculous.  I feels soooo ashamed.

He  continues:

I want to create a world where every single believer double-thinks before opening their mouth to proselytize for fear that their target will be well-informed and will make a public fool out of them for believing something so outlandish.

This is silly.  The world that Eberhard wants is simply a fantasy.  It’s wishful thinking.  Nothing that Eberhard does or says will ever bring about his fantasy world.  You would have to be pretty gullible to think otherwise.

If there are good reasons to believe in Christianity, trot them out.  Otherwise, don’t get all pissy when I say that you’re gullible.

So the atheist activist is going to weigh whether or not reasons are “good “ reasons.  Look, an activist has an agenda.  Activists don’t weigh reasons objectively and open-mindedly.  So yes, a Christian would have to be pretty gullible to bite on that clumsy bait.

And as for the argument of “how would you like it if people went around saying that you’re gullible, huh atheist?”  Try it.  Say that I’m gullible.

OK, JT Eberhard is gullible.  He is an atheist activist who thinks he is helping to create some Gnutopia where “every single believer double-thinks before opening their mouth to proselytize for fear that their target will be well-informed and will make a public fool out of them for believing something so outlandish.”

You know what I’ll do?  I’ll defend my position.

Well, is there any good evidence that JT Eberhard has helped to bring about a world where “every single believer double-thinks before opening their mouth to proselytize for fear that their target will be well-informed and will make a public fool out of them for believing something so outlandish?”

I’ll also weep for humanity that someone who believes a guy rose from the dead 2,000 years ago can say, with a straight face, that the guy who doesn’t believe that is the gullible one.

Quick, someone get Eberhard a Kleenex.

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

6 Responses to A Gullible Atheist

  1. Ilíon says:

    Wait!

    This so-called atheist is making a moral assertion — “But being gullible when we have the capacity to do better is something for which we should feel ashamed.

    And another — “For those who think someone rose from the dead, you’re damn right you should be ashamed of that belief. It’s ridiculous. It cannot be defended. … If there are good reasons to believe in Christianity, trot them out. Otherwise, don’t get all pissy when I say that you’re gullible.

    Where did those come from?

  2. Random says:

    What is your evidence that Jesus rose from the dead?

  3. Crude says:

    What is your evidence that Jesus rose from the dead?

    Easily answered. But first: what qualifies as evidence for you, especially where acts of God are concerned?

  4. cl says:

    I want to create a world where every single believer double-thinks before opening their mouth to proselytize for fear that their target will be well-informed and will make a public fool out of them for believing something so outlandish.

    LOL! At least he practices what he preaches in this regard. After all, he sure thought twice about debating lil’ ol’ me, didn’t he? Of course, he’ll tell you it’s because I’m “troll” who uses “too many big philosophical words,” but… c’mon. It’s plain to see he didn’t want his arguments handed to him in shreds.

  5. Random says:

    “what qualifies as evidence for you, especially where acts of God are concerned?”

    If I saw a miracle myself, if a very large number of objective observers (i.e. educated, unbiased, not suffering from mental problems etc) reported seeing a miracle and I had no reason to think they were lying or being deceived, if a miracle was the best explanation of a set of facts and we could be sure that all plausible naturalistic alternatives were eliminated, if a miracle occured under laboratory conditions and the results could easily be verified/repeated by anyone…stuff like that. Then someone would have to explain why the miracle reports of contradictory religions don’t cancel each other out.

    I think these are pretty low standards. I also highly doubt that the resurrection meets them. Still I’m open to the evidence. How do you know that Jesus rose from the dead?

  6. Michael says:

    Random

    If I saw a miracle myself,

    Without time travel, that’s a non-starter.

    if a very large number of objective observers (i.e. educated, unbiased, not suffering from mental problems etc) reported seeing a miracle and I had no reason to think they were lying or being deceived,

    There is no such thing as “objective observers.” What’s more, if someone became a Christian as a consequence of witnessing the resurrection, their Christian belief would be cited as the reason why can dismiss their testimony. Nothing of use here.

    if a miracle was the best explanation of a set of facts and we could be sure that all plausible naturalistic alternatives were eliminated,

    LOL. An appeal to God-of-the-gaps. Are you acknowledging that the God-of-the-gaps approach is valid?

    if a miracle occured under laboratory conditions and the results could easily be verified/repeated by anyone…stuff like that.

    So Jesus was supposed to have risen in a lab?

    Then someone would have to explain why the miracle reports of contradictory religions don’t cancel each other out.

    I see. So even if we could send Random back into time to witness the resurrection, along with a set of “objective observers” complete with lab equipment to document something for which we could be sure that all plausible naturalistic alternatives were eliminated, that would not be good enough. We would then have to “explain” why the miracle reports of contradictory religions don’t cancel each other out.

    I think these are pretty low standards.

    LOL. Those are the standards of the closed-mind – if Jesus did indeed rise from the dead, your standards would not allow you to detect this truth.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s