The typical-stereotypical-well-within-the-box-atheist-group-think-talking points-de jour keep on coming as the stereotypical atheist strikes again.
The attached image shows how the email displayed in the inbox. If you have regular dealings with atheist, just from a fragment of the opening sentence one can readily discern exactly what stereotypical atheist was going to state.
Open the email and, indeed, there is nothing new under the Sun. He stated exactly what was discerned and the next round of stereotypical atheist talking points proceeded forth.
This is what the comment stated:
You don’t find it fishy that people born in india can be raises to believe in shiva, yet you are born into a christian religion so that’s what you believe?
And that’s somehow the right one?
Its just ridiculous.. You can polish **** [expletive removed], but people are not as gullible as they once were. Religion is on the decrease.
Now that’s what I can evolution!
Here is the response:
Thanks for getting back to me on this issue.
You should research a logical fallacy known as “ad hominem” or “genetic fallacy” as familiarizing yourself with it will keep you from making illogical statements—if you are a consistent thinker, that is.
What the ad hominem / genetic fallacy does is that it attacks the source of an argument, statements, claim, etc. whilst leaving the actual argument, statements, claim unscathed, un-responded to.
This is tantamount to stating, “Well, Richard Dawkins tends towards anger so his arguments are erroneous.” Clearly, his arguments could be correct no matter how he puts them forth.
You fall into this fallacy by attacking the source “people born in india can be raises to believe in shiva” whilst leaving the conclusion unscathed, which in this case would be whether Shiva is a god, “the right one.”
However, I will temporarily borrow your illogic and see what happens when I apply it.
You previously stated, “atheism is becoming a majority in many parts of Europe and other parts of the world.”
Indeed, there are many countries where atheists have been a majority for many, many decades.
You don’t find it fishy that people born in Europe and other parts of the world where atheists are a majority can be raised to be atheists, yet if you are born into a Christian religion that’s what you believe?
Indeed, it is rather fishy that people born in atheist majority countries raise their children to be atheists and so, the number of atheists is raising (I have documented that many, many atheists parents do just that—see: Atheist Child Rearing).
Moreover, just because there are countries in which atheism is the majority sect, this does not mean that atheism is true—majority opinion does not determine truth.
I assume that since you are writing to me, you are referring to me when you state, “you are born into a christian religion so that’s what you believe.” It would be logical to first ask me if I was, in fact, “born into a christian religion” and then, if I respond in the affirmative, follow up by asking whether that is why I believe what I believe.
Well, just so you know, I was not “born into a christian religion” and was not raised by Christian parents. I was raised 100% secular. My family are non-practicing Jews (an atheist father and an agnostic mother). Even when I went to private Jewish school, I was sent there merely for the cultural reasons and not, I repeat not, in no way whatsoever (as my father made it clear) for any religious purposes. In fact, believing what I do now goes 100% against the way that I was raised (another thing that my father has made very, very clear).
Now, does believing in something just because you were raised to believe it make it true? Of course not, who ever claimed any such thing? That is the worst reason to believe in something.
That 2+2=4 is not true just because I was raised to believe it. That there are subatomic particles is not true just because I was raised to believe it. That there is a God is not true just because I was raised to believe it. That there is no God is not true just because I was raised to believe it.
That Keanu Reeves can act is not true just because…well, it’s just not true.
Note that stating, “Its just ridiculous” is just that, an argument to ridicule or, as Richard Dawkins would rightly term it, an “argument from incredulity.” Just because you cannot believe something or just because you find something ridiculous, does not make it false. You are merely reacting emotionally when you find that you have no reasonable manner in which to tackle the issue.
I suspect, that this may be due to the previously mentioned fact that it is perhaps possible that your knowledge of theology has not developed past the time you were 5-6—your apparent lack of knowledge of natural theology / general revelation seems to still make your consideration of such issues murky.
Lastly, I ask again: to which sect of atheism do you adhere?
And so we see, again, that the self-assured and self-satisfied talking points are very, very easily dismantled.