Courtesy of new atheist tildeb, commenting on this post from lotharlorraine’s (very good) blog:
I said this, when he asked what my definition of “faith” was:
I like C.S. Lewis’s definition: “Faith is holding on to things your reason has once accepted, in spite of your changing moods.”
Really? Your reason has you once accepted? That implies something once known. But is this true?
What might that reason be? Might it be because of compelling evidence adduced from reality?
I don’t think so and I don’t think you think so even for a moment.
Yes, that’s right. He just told me my definition of faith was wrong because believers can’t believe in the Resurrection due to reason. And because of that, I’m obviously lying about my definition of faith. To him, it is literally impossible that anybody can examine the evidence and come to a different conclusion than he does.
I responded with this:
Are you even serious, dude? You’re telling me the definition is wrong because I don’t believe in Jesus’s Resurrection because of reason, when I haven’t even given you a reason yet?
You are beyond talking to. This is a farce, and you’ve revealed your true colors by poisoning the well. “Obviously you don’t believe in the Resurrection because of reason, because reason can’t prove the Resurrection!”
What a joke.
How about this: Your reason for being an atheist is totally unreasonable, since there is no good reason for you not to believe in God. Thus, I know you are only an atheist because of faith. QED.
We’re done here.
Good job by Crude of taking this clown down hard.