Christians think they are being rational and logical. But when they try to rationalize their faith based on evidence, they tend to resort to what is "possible", and then claim that they have won the argument because something is merely "posslble". Short of providing real evidence for the existence of the Christian God, they dive into philosophy, in order to somehow logically prove the necessity of the existence of god. To me, however this is no different than mental gymnastics, resulting in endless rabbit trails around epistemology, metaphysics and ontology. It is, simply, making stuff up.
John Loftus immediately commented:
johnwloftus
Boy, this sounds a lot like me. ;-)
I don't think this person really understand what Christianity is. I mean if you switch out his words and use opposite words, you get the following:
[Atheists] think they are being rational and logical. But when they try to rationalize their [doubts] based on evidence, they tend to resort to what is ["probable"], and then claim that they have won the argument because something is merely ["probable"]. Short of providing real evidence for the [non]existence of the Christian God, they dive into philosophy, in order to somehow logically prove the unnecessity of the existence of god. To me, however this is no different than mental gymnastics, resulting in endless rabbit trails around epistemology, metaphysics and ontology. It is, simply, making stuff up.
Yes, indeed it does sound a lot like John Loftus. The fact that the same thing can be said, invalidates the statement against Christianity.
