So this is a response to his Atheist Starter Kit post. I won't respond to each and every point, because they are all fairly transparent, and also because the mistakes he makes (for the sake of comedy, which I can normally respect) are repeated practically each time.
Good idea. But I've never had to do that, because I've never been presented with credible evidence. It isn't a false dichotomy - it's a completely false statement. His point here, which I can sympathize with to a degree, is that atheists do respond to many arguments with brief bullet points. But here's the thing: the reason that all of these types of arguments have specific and relatively well-known names is because they come up so often because people like ray comfort have never been able to come up with legitimate arguments.
1. Whenever you are presented with credible evidence for God's existence, call it a "straw man argument," or "circular reasoning." If something is quoted from somewhere, label it "quote mining."
2. When a Christian says that creation proves that there is a Creator, dismiss such common sense by saying "That's just the old watchmaker argument."This is just stupid from "When" to "argument". Yes, dear christians: creation does require a creator. But nature is not creation. Also yes, that is the old watchmaker argument, and there are such easy refutations that invoking the name is kind of like a shortcut.
6. Say that you were once a genuine Christian, and that you found it to be false. (The cool thing about being an atheist is that you can lie through your teeth, because you believe that are no moral absolutes.) Additionally, if a Christian points out that this is impossible (simply due to the very definition of Christianity as one who knows the Lord), just reply "That's the 'no true Scotsman fallacy.'" PLEASE NOTE: It cannot be overly emphasized how learning and using these little phrases can help you feel secure in dismissing common sense.I really don't know what he's talking about here, because he seems to be making several unrelated points. I once was a christian - I don't know how genuine I was, but as far as I knew I was the read deal. And then, he just accuses me of lying, which is absurd, because it is a fact that I considered myself a christian for decades. Also, no moral absolutes does not mean that lying is automatically okay. And I'm just not sure what 'common sense' he is referring to.
... do I really need to write anything? I think he pretty much just sounds like an idiot with no scientific background. I will just point out that, while neither I nor anyone else I know accepts the theory of evolution as absolute certainty, simply proving evolution false would absolutely not justify faith in the bible.
7. Believe that nothing is 100% certain, except the theory of Darwinian evolution. Do not question it. Believe with all of your heart that there is credible scientific evidence for species-to-species transitional forms. When you make any argument, pat yourself on the back by concluding with "Man, are you busted!" That will make you feel good about yourself.
One more and I'll be done - I'm surprised I've lasted this long!
That all really just sounds like church to me. Really - like the last point I listed, I can't actually respond to this without insulting my audience. You can see how wrong it is for yourself!
10. Finally, keep in fellowship with other like-minded atheists who believe as you believe, and encourage each other in your beliefs. Build up your faith. Never doubt for a moment. Remember, the key to atheism is to be unreasonable. Fall back on that when you feel threatened. Think shallow, and keep telling yourself that you are intelligent. Remember, an atheist is someone who pretends there is no God.
Atheism vs. theism is at a stalemate, which is something that I mentioned earlier. Neither side can really summon up any new arguments, so they just throw the same points back and forth. It's like a routine. Every now and then someone is hit by an argument and goes to the other side. And sometimes that new 'convert' is energized (as I was) and full of steam and a desire to join the fray. But then that enthusiasm dies and the stalemate continues.
Like all ongoing arguments there is a single core disagreement from which everything stems. If that point can be reached, a lot of time can be saved. I believe I know that point, although saving time is kind of a moot issue by now. The primary disagreement (not counting the god vs no god element) is about faith. Theists rely on faith to 'prove' their points, but they refuse to acknowledge this. Atheists discount faith entirely, and are completely upfront about it. This is, I believe, the core of the argument. I don't see a breakthrough any time soon, but it's nice to know where your problem is.
So with that, I will kick ray comfort's dumb ass to the curb.