Bad Assumptions to Attack the Bible
Christians and creationists encounter the so-called "New Atheists" as keyboard warriors, attacking God, the Bible, Christianity, Christians, and especially creation science. You'll probably encounter that one guy who acts like he is the one to come up with some great new insight to cause the collapse of theism, all by his lonesome. Better thinkers than you have tried and failed with the same arguments for a long, long time, Poindexter.
When you study on it, you'll see that the logically impaired arguments leveled by misotheists today have a great deal in common with criticisms of the Bible used in days of yore. Today, we deal with speculations passed off as "science", with "scientists think", "maybe", "could have been", "perhaps", and so forth. Similarly, there were heretics that made up their own false theologies, and others who would join in by making up excuses essentially based on naturalistic philosophies.
Arguing from presuppositions (assumptions about what is true) and faulty epistemology (how someone knows something is true) are joined up with bad logic. "Prophesies were not fulfilled, and made up after the fact". "The Virgin Birth was a cover-up for Mary's pregnancy from a Roman soldier". "What the apostles wrote about the life of Jesus has little resemblance for what really happened". How do you know that? Were you there, or can you furnish reliable eyewitness accounts? Do you have anything resembling evidence, or do you rely on prejudicial conjecture? A bit of critical thinking and challenge can make fluster naysayers.
Misotheists today have a great deal in common with the anti-Christians of ancient times. Unbelievers and heretics would use bad logic and assumptions that had no basis in fact.
 |
| The Penitent Apostle Peter, Anthony van Dyck, 1618 |
Arguing from presuppositions (assumptions about what is true) and faulty epistemology (how someone knows something is true) are joined up with bad logic. "Prophesies were not fulfilled, and made up after the fact". "The Virgin Birth was a cover-up for Mary's pregnancy from a Roman soldier". "What the apostles wrote about the life of Jesus has little resemblance for what really happened". How do you know that? Were you there, or can you furnish reliable eyewitness accounts? Do you have anything resembling evidence, or do you rely on prejudicial conjecture? A bit of critical thinking and challenge can make fluster naysayers.
Is the Bible the reliable Word of God or a fallible collection of human religious ideas? The purpose of this article is to show that the conflict between secular science and the Bible is not new, but dates back to the days of the early church. Greek scientists like Porphyry and Celsus questioned the reliability of the contents of Genesis, Jonah, Daniel, as well as the factuality of Jesus’ Virgin Birth and Resurrection. This paper will demonstrate how early Greek scholars alleged that the holy Christian Scriptures were unreliable productions of men and will consider the commitment of the early church to these writings as the voice of God.To read the rest of the article and see the poor reasoning of misotheists, click on "Battle for the Bible in the early church".
Misotheists today have a great deal in common with the anti-Christians of ancient times. Unbelievers and heretics would use bad logic and assumptions that had no basis in fact.