Status Updates From What's So Great About Chris...

Ew... I wonder what the author thinks about no fault divorce.

Were the ideas of consent and harm absent from the discourse back then? He insists on the unanamity of morality without anything specific then scoffs at the idea that evolution could have an impact. His qupte mines become more obvious. I have no idea what the context was surrounding the Sagan quote.

Gott mit uns? More and more, this feels like someone throwing food at the wall and seeing what sticks. His only references look quote mined. His boldest claims have none. While I think the four horsemen simplified much of their arguments, I feel doing it in the other direction is not helpful. Religion has played a role in various conflicts. There were and are wicth hunts. The go by different names. Satanic panic?

He claims Hitchens's razor is a category error and insists atheists understand the power of Pascal's wager. More than half way through the book, I am still wondering wht the Christian God over others. I don't think there's much power in the wager because I don't think any deity has a bigger claim than another. I think Hitchens razor plays into that. There's no evidence and saying its a category error doesn't help you

Saying I don't know isn't atheism of the gaps

And Paley makes an appearance. A simplified rebuttal is that this argument conflats all of what is natural with a watch. They are very different things. Americans are 'dubious' of evolution is for religeous, usually Christian, reasons. I have my issues with Dawkins, but it's obvious that you did not read his book, the Blind Watchmaker. Also, please leanr what an analogy is...

Why are we assuming the universe was created? The Big Bang implies a starting point, or a begining of some sort. Why is it your deity? Also, nice slipping in the idea of the multiverse as if it's on the same level as the Big Bang. We have much to learn, hiding behind a tradition onlyets you so far.

I think the chapter he dedicated to Galileo was poorly written and misses a bit of the why. Galileo is a popular example because of how far we've come from Biblical times and how much we understand. In time, there might be better examples. Now we're onto the design argument...

His claims against Judaism and Islam could be levied against his own faith. The first direct scripture reference is to atheists being fools. He's getting more blatant with partial quotations. Claims that the universe being predictable is because of god and those who reject his deity take that on faith. I don't think he has suppoerted one of his claims well.

Some claims about Christianity elevation women, first to want to end slavery, and they established just wars. No citaions. Just assertions. He seems to only cite tangential claims. I don't think he's referenced a verse yet

Love that he hints at Islam and theocracy but does not apply that to his faith. Lots of little dog whistles sprinkled in. I think he does not understand what secularism or small government. I am also concerned that he thinks Christianity invented consent. I don't think Mary was able to give that...

Conflates atheism, secularism, and Darwinism. They are different concepts and I do not trust someone who unironically uses the term Darwinist. Claims atheism is cultural suicude then moves on. Claims Darwinism is an ideology. Honestly, I think he is as illiterate as he claims the youth are. Out education system needs work but Christianity is not the answer. Also, ideas can out grow their origins.

Plenty of missing citations already. He does not seem to grasp some concepts in evolution. Either the book is showing it's age or he did not read about how religion might have developed as a meme. He seems to have an issue with the new atheists, but has not gotten specific yet. He also seems to leave out that many of the books referenced were published post 9/11. Why bring up birth rates? Was it already a dogwhistle?

Already claims that have not aged well. He is not a creationist in the most conservative sense but is not liberal by modern senses.

i like the thought that even the most facts-driven scientists are rooted in faith

i’m #skeptical so far