atheist – Soul Liberty

Are You Sure That Twitter Account is Real?

At times when dealing with someone who wards off simple truths with oddly complex arguments, it can be helpful to illustrate that same argument in a different way. I had an opportunity to do exactly that when observing a conversation on Twitter between a Christian apologist and an atheist. The typical points were raised: there is no scientific evidence for God, evolution is a better explanation of our origins, Christianity is about money and control over the “sheeple”, the Bible can’t be used as evidence, and who would want to believe in such a wrathful God anyway?

Below is one way to illustrate the absurdity of those challenges. If we relate the universe to the Twitterverse, this is how those arguments would sound. The twitter account names have been replaced with “Christian” and “Atheist” in brackets.

[Christian] perhaps you should reconsider your belief in the existence of [Atheist]. What looks to you like an account from an intelligent being operating outside the Twitterverse is more likely the result of a process of continuous evolution giving the appearance of intelligence.

A better explanation is that Twitter has evolved an ability to respond to environmental stimulus more efficiently than its competitors such as the Blogosphere, Tumblr, WordPress, etc. This evolutionary advantage has helped it multiply its accounts at a far greater rate than others. These findings make it clear that no explanation other than the normal interaction of electrons manipulating common alphabetical codes is necessary.

Another possible explanation is that the followers of this being known as [Atheist] are skewing the data in their favor, perhaps motivated by money-grubbing or to exert control and influence over other tweeters.

The only proof anyone has yet offered that he actually exists are words which claim to be written (or at least inspired) by him. Obviously they were fabricated by his followers. Why should anyone believe their claim, especially when science can account for these phenomena by appealing only to the known operation of semiconductors instead of some mythical Tweeter? If his followers wish to claim that anything outside the Twitterverse actually exists, the burden of proof is on them, not us.

Finally, why would anyone actually WANT to believe in such a mean, vindictive Tweeter? Many who still believe the existence of such beings find it much more satisfying to follow a more friendly, less judgmental one.

Refuting the Skeptic’s Annotated Bible

Christians who have argued with atheists in online forums have probably seen at least one link to the Skeptic’s Annotated Bible (SAB) or its refined version at Project Reason. It lists the objections that Bible critics have compiled over the years into categories like “contradiction,” “science and history,” “absurdities,” and so on. One designer even visualized the alleged contradictions in a poster similar to a popular one which shows biblical cross references.

Several apologists’ responses have cropped up over time, but none are as complete and well-organized as Berend de Boer’s work. In August 2011, Mr. De Boer completed a seven-year project to respond to every objection in the SAB. Perhaps more importantly, he does so in a way that contrasts the scoffer’s flippancy with a kind, temperate, Christian attitude. Consider the challenge and response to Genesis 2:2 about the seventh day of creation:

Skeptic:

Even God gets tired sometimes.

de Boer:

Tired is not the right word, but God himself tells us he was refreshed by his rest, see Ex. 31:17. That is the purpose of the Sabbath for us as well, see Ex. 23:12.

His work draws a great deal from others who have come before. The primary commentary he mentions is John Gill’s Exposition written in 1746, but also referenced an earlier work from 1621 by Johannes Polyander which goes deeper. On the web, lookinguntojesus.net provided a similarly thorough (though poorly organized) reference as well.

Berend describes his motivation in part was to make these answers more accessible in our internet age:

Some skeptics appear to have grown up in new churches with no link to the past, no confessions, no well-known figures from the past, and they seem to invent the wheel every time. That might account for the fact that, according to them, no one was able to give them any answer to the questions they had. Even though these answers were available for 2,000 years… [to find answers] you have to know to search for “John Gill’s exposition”, so that’s still a barrier, but responses to skeptics like mine will make that less of an issue.

When I asked about his overall thought process, he had this to say:

My goal was to find the answers in readily available, very well-known commentaries, and preferably over centuries old. this way no one could accuse me of using “latest greatest research” or things no one could have known. All these skeptics think they come up with something new after 2,000 years, which on the face of it is already preposterous. But I wanted to demonstrate that as well.

The next time you see an angry skeptic on the internet and feel compelled to respond as commanded in 1 Peter 3:15 with meekness and fear. And, if you’re having trouble finding that “ready answer,” a great place to start is with Berend de Boer’s excellent resource.