This reply is typical Village Atheist bluster. You equate a Christian worldview with crude fundamentalism, sneer at the latter, and think that you have thereby refuted the former.

What is a "Village Atheist," you ask? Well, the High Priest of Village Atheism is Dan Barker of the Freedom From Religion Foundation in Madison, WI. Barker is a former fundamentalist preacher who never stopped being a fundamentalist, but merely switched his beliefs. Contrast Barker with, say, an Elliott Sober (Wisconsin-Madison philosopher) or a Nick Sturgeon (Cornell philosopher). Both are naturalists, certainly. Neither is ultimately convinced by theistic arguments. Their respective (and interesting) projects are largely a matter of working on naturalism as a sort of "research project" (i.e., "How much can we explain given only the resources of a naturalistic worldview?). But they both recognize that they have formidable opponents in their Christian theistic counterparts.

Basmati is apparently ignorant of the best literature and so resorts to setting up a straw man to knock over. Here's a good place to start. It is naturalist philosopher Quentin Smith's "report from the front," in which he notes that a lively and formidable realist version of theism has emerged on the scene in the philosophical world. You should read the whole piece, but here's an interesting tidbit:

"Naturalists passively watched as realist versions of theism, most influenced by Plantinga’s writings, began to sweep through the philosophical community, until today perhaps one-quarter or one-third of philosophy professors are theists, with most being orthodox Christians."

http://www.philoonline.org/library/smith_4_2.htm

A Sober or Sturgeon would be capable of sitting down and discussing such issues over beer. (In fact, I've done just this with both guys.) The Village Atheist, on the other hand, is content with throwing peanuts--or, perhaps, rice.

-----

"Every time I'm in Georgia I eat a peach for peace."
--Duane Allman

You don’t agree with my snarky comments, so you resort to snarky comments yourself. Let’s retire the tired pot-kettle cliché and instead calling it… muddleslinging.

A careful reading of Adams initial screed shows nothing in the way of meaningful criticism of atheism, it’s simply a recitation of fundamentalist talking points ascribing various negative “beliefs” to atheism (which of course at its core is a fundamental lack of beliefs). Count just how many times the phrase “To be an athesist you have to believe….” In his/her propaganda piece.

You seem not to notice how Adams shifted his/her diatribe into a thinly-veiled denunciation of Darwinism, a hot button issue of the fundie set. The fact that many, if not most, Christians can simultaneously accept both faith and evolution seems not to register on Adams’ radar. Putting lipstick on the “intelligent design” pig doesn’t make it any more appealing to the masses.

Adams does make one inadvertent slip toward the end of his/her jeremiad: Note how the criticism of atheism devolves into a denunciation of scientists in general who don’t accept Adams’ particular philosophical underpinnings (faith) as a basis for their facts.

I’ve found through experience that fundamentalists like Adams are not interested in meaningful debate. On the contrary, they simply seek out public forums so that they might profess their faith and denigrate those whose have beliefs contrary to their own.

On a final note, please don’t assume that I am an atheist because my opinions are dissimilar to yours. It weakens your already specious argument.

I commend you on having simplified your idea gatekeeping such that you can skim an essay which presents (or at least hints at) complex ideas until you find a point at which the essay can be classified as unnecessary to explore. (In this case, as I suspect it often is, that classification is "fundamentalist.")

Small wonder that such a simple life enables a sure sense of superiority over the likes of the beleagured muddle who is plagued with intellectual curiosity.

Nice one.

Actually, I didn't really present an argument in that post--just an observation. So it can hardly have been "specious." But it sure does sound intelligent when you say that someone's argument was "specious," doesn't it?

I also like the term "snarky." "Snarky." Say it! It's fun! "Snarky." I like that.

My observation, then, was that your snarky comments were typical Village Atheist bluster, and that your target was a straw man. It's the same snarky brew that you serve up when you get on a political rant.

Questioning the soundness of Darwin's theory does not make one a fundamentalist. Nor does skepticism regarding it necessarily motivate one to politicize the issue in the schools and the like.

Dawkins is fond of saying that the theory is as well established as is the earth's circuit around the sun. No it isn't. Nor does his adding, in his modulated fashion, "Evolution is fact, fact, FACT!" make it so. ("Pound pulpit here," say the sermon notes at their weakest spots.)

The idea of natural selection makes a lot of sense to me. The question--and this is where the theory stalls and the theorists themselves splinter off into competing factions--is whether the idea is sufficient for explaining all that needs to be explained. I have yet to see anything even *remotely* resembling a demonstration of this.

Indeed, as Al Plantinga and others have observed, if you are a naturalist, then Darwinism is the only game in town. It *has* to work, otherwise you're in the situation that Dawkins himself described in "The Blind Watchmaker": Atheism was *logically* tenable before Darwin, but one could not be an intellectually fulfilled atheist. Why? Because there is all this stuff that looks for all the world as though it was an intentional design staring you in the face.

The theory as advanced is *unfalsifiable* in principle, and is therefore not an empirical hypothesis but dogma. Faced with challenges to its explanatory power, proponents issue an IOU, suggesting that a model of explanation is just over the next horizon. The problem is that the horizon keeps receding. One begins to wonder, what would it take for these proponents of the theory to toss up their hands and give it up?

Darwin himself suggested the criterion for assessing his theory. If any organism that could not have come about as the result of numerous, successive, slight modifications is ever discovered, then his theory will have been shown to be false. Behe and others claim to have made such discoveries. This is, I think, what Adams was referring to. The posturing that Dawkins and his ilk take on this issue attests that a raw nerve has been hit. Someone has drawn a cartoon of the prophet!

If you are not an "atheist," then I am sorry if I implied so. I took you to be a naturalist, which is my preferred term. "Atheist" has some rather pejorative connotations that "naturalist" does not.
Naturalism is the *only* live option to theism as far as I am concerned, and so I spend a great deal of time thinking through the implications of both.

-----

"Every time I'm in Georgia I eat a peach for peace."
--Duane Allman

My understanding of an atheist is that he doesn't delve into all of those "he has to believe" items you listed. He doesn't have to believe anything supernatural. Anyone can make all kinds of arguments for anything by selecting supporting writings, but until unnatural miracles happen repeatedly, it is just faith.

I take it that a part of the author's intention is to show that an atheistic or naturalistic perspective requires a leap of faith. So even if you are correct in your assessment that "it is just faith," the theist is not unique in this.

But your comment that "Anyone can make all kinds of arguments for anything by selecting supporting writings" certainly does not address any of the arguments themselves. One might as well reply in that way to an argument for unguided natural selection. It is a way of *eluding* genuine dialog and debate.

Further, such a reply would seem to commit you to a general skepticism regarding the value of argumentation. But, of course, either such a skepticism is defensible or it is not. If not, then, well, it's just indefensible. If so, it is defended only by argument, and so is self-refuting.

Sure, anyone can make an argument for anything, but there are good arguments and there are bad ones. Some are even downright foolish.
And argument is certainly not a matter of merely finding "writings" that support one's view and citing them.

The author argues, in effect, that, given known facts about the universe, an inference to the best explanation favors theism over atheism. Do you offer an assessment of his/her actual arguments?

But, of course, there are good and bad arguments. Some are even just plain nonsense.

The "arguments" in question suggest that the best explanation for the known facts is that the world has been designed by an intelligent creator.

-----

"Every time I'm in Georgia I eat a peach for peace."
--Duane Allman

I'm certainly not arguing that there isn't a Creator. I'm simply stating that atheists aren't convinced by man's arguments, and to point at the Bible and say "there are the facts" is also unconvincing for many reasons to him. To say one must listen to all of men's arguments and then decide whether to have "faith" or not is risky--just as risky to him as not to do so. The problem comes when a person wants to be left alone about his ultimate ending, and organized religion will not do so, thinking they must know the truth as they see it, and that their ultimate ending depends upon convincing someone else how to do it. Risky to some due to all of the false religious zealots around. They trust their own judgement.

Having debated theology for years I have found the most simplistic core issues are the most telling.

The article was excellent. It nails many facts down in a very organized manner.

Of course, an atheist retaliates by attacking the faith issue.

My standard come back is that atheism is a religion and it is built on faith.

Then kick in one simple question to prove the point. Where did the matter, time, space, energy and all else of the Universe, in the ultimate beginning, come from?

It either came from:
1. Out of nothing for absolutely no reason. Which defies and denies science.
2. It is eternal. Which also defies science. All things have a beginning and an end in science. As they now know matter and the rest has as well.
3. It was created. By a god, superior race or so on. A god defies science. A superior race does not address the ultimate beginnings issue.

Like it or not, science cannot ever deal with ther ultimate beginning. It is a supernatural event that flies in the face of science.

What does the Bible say about it? That God has no beginning and no end. That the Universe has a beginning and will have an end. That before the beginning and after the end time will cease to exist. All will be perfect and eternal, but not THIS Universe we know.

So much in the Bible agrees with what the scientists did not know until recently in history.

Bottom line, faith is an issue for Christianity. Faith is an issue for atheism. One must be willing to examine all the known facts and then make a leap of faith to what one will believe. Be one Christian or be one atheist.

And the atheists hate the fact and reality.

Even more so, when one weighs it all out Christianity wins.

My 2 cents here.

-----------------------------
Keeping it real and to the core of the issue, not the peripherals.

It is just a matter of whether one wants to have faith in himself or in something he doesn't know exists.

It actually is does one want to find the truth or is one so egotistical they feel they are the truth?

A smart person realizes that if there is eternal life they better be on the right side of the decisions and issues. Just appeasing ones self-esteem in this life is not seeking any truth.

A smart person also realizes faith in self about such issues a very misplaced position to take.

-----------------------------
Keeping it real and to the core of the issue, not the peripherals.