Tuesday, July 2, 2013

Atheists say the cutest things

Words of Wisdom: Why Have a Word For Anything?



No, we don't have words for people who doubt that Elvis is still alive.  But we sure would have a word for someone who said that Elvis never existed, but was simply a giant conspiracy of music industry insiders in order to bilk teenagers out of their hard earned money.

I know, this is one of those many things that atheists say that makes rational people scratch their heads.  And if I had more time, I could have more fun with it.  But big celebration of our country's birthday coming up, and time being what it is, I have planning and preparations to think about.

So here's my thing.  This whole 'atheism is not anything, it's the absence of all things, the great not-un-thing that means it's true because it's obviously right' argument is, to me, evidence of the desperation of atheism.  In the end, the cocksure belief that atheists of centuries past had, that the new found scientific methods and reliance on mathematical formulas would unlock all knowledge and demonstrate all reality apart from a divine, has more or less washed up on the beach.

In fact, few things bolster religious faith than looking back at what skeptics and secularists in the olden days imagined would deflate reasonable belief in the Almighty, and comparing it to what has happened up to date.  The worst thing is the realization that atheism can't prove anything about God or the absence thereof.  It has been entirely incapable of proving anything about the truth claims of religion.  Science, when properly understood and utilized, has nothing to say.  And as atheists are fond of pointing out, you can't prove a negative.

True.  But what atheists don't want to say, or admit, is that atheism is, in the end, a belief.  A subjective, personal, unverifiable belief.  It has statements of faith that would shame a south Alabama Baptist preacher.  Can science explain the origins of all things?  No.  But atheists are 'sure' it will some day, and will do so without relying on the divine.  Really?  And they 'know' this?  No.  They 'believe' it.  Just the thought that science alone should speak to the question of God's existence is a faith statement: how do they know all that exists is measurable by the scientific method?  How do they know that if a god existed,  it could be revealed through scientific study?  They don't.  They 'believe' it.

The point is, atheism is a subjective religious belief.  It is a belief about the reality of religious belief.  It doesn't exist in a vacuum.  Atheists aren't  idiots unaware of the fact that there's this thing called religion where people believe in God.  Atheists by their own admission have looked at the evidence and concluded that they cannot believe in God or the divine.  They believe that all matter simply is, and came from an origin that simply was.  With no evidence to buttress them, and relying on enough faith to fill a stadium, atheists declare these truths with no more evidence than that which a person of faith can muster, and sometimes not as much.

So in a desperate act of self-deception, atheists are inclined to say things like the above.  It stretches ludicrousness to the extreme.  And most people with the smallest shard of common sense can see such an argument is ludicrous, through they may not be able to pinpoint why.  But it's enough to know that such statements are acts of desperation from people who in all likelihood are smart enough to know the truth, and are hoping (dare I say, praying) that if they repeat such things enough, not only will others actually believe it, but most important of all, the atheists themselves will finally believe it, too.  Which they should be able to do, since so much of what atheists or other secularists bring to the debate is nothing other than belief in the first place.

60 comments:

  1. Excuse me, but what evidence do you have for "God" to exist? (The bible doesn't count. It's the claim, not the evidence.)

    ReplyDelete
  2. Again, you have to tell me what evidence you're looking for. Scientific? Biological? What?

    ReplyDelete
  3. Again, what evidence have you got? I don't think you have many (if at all), so throw any evidence you have at me.

    ReplyDelete
  4. OK, you ask me how I know he lives, he lives within my heart. Will that do? Probably not. So what evidence do you demand? You're the one saying you want evidence. Fair enough. The least you can do is say what kind of evidence. I mean, that's not exactly foreign to a discussion. I say 'prove it', I need to demonstrate what it is I'll accept as proof.

    ReplyDelete
  5. What you just described is an anecdote, not evidence.

    I'll simply pull it from an article:

    Evidence is what serves to either support or counter a scientific theory or hypothesis. Such evidence is expected to be empirical evidence and in accordance with scientific method. Standards for evidence vary according to the field of inquiry, but the strength of scientific evidence is generally based on the results of statistical analysis and the strength of scientific controls.

    ReplyDelete
  6. That's great for science. But we're talking theology. In order to demand that evidence for scientific theory is demanded for a theological claim, we'd have to establish that evidence for scientific claims is the only acceptable evidence for theological claims. And here's where it gets sticky. If that is the case, do you have any evidence that only evidence for scientific theories and hypotheses are valid when considering theological claims? To make the demand, we'd have to have the evidence. You can't just start 2/3 through the race and say 'you have to provide evidence that conforms to scientific standards for this religious claim about God's existence.' That, itself, must be established.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Oh, excuse me, Princess, I had presumed that only evidence that can be relied on and proven (or disproven) is used anywhere.
    Besides, theology is hardly a science or even a field of study:
    "What has theology ever said that is of the smallest use to anybody? When has theology ever said anything that is demonstrably true and is not obvious? [...] If all the achievements of scientists were wiped out tomorrow, there would be no doctors but witch doctors, no transport faster than horses, no computers, no printed books, no agriculture beyond subsistence peasant farming. If all the achievements of theologians were wiped out tomorrow, would anyone notice the smallest difference? [...] What makes anyone think that “theology” is a subject at all?"
    In short, theology is not a valid firewall to stand behind trying to defend yourself. You're the one that's trying to bring a bicycle to a marathon.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Could you prove that theology is not a subject other than simply stating your personal subjective belief and quoting others who share your belief? You've made the statement. Now you must provide the evidence. Other than the popular atheist 'well of course God doesn't exist, duh. That proves it because I said duh.' You'll have to do better than that to show you've not fallen victim to the always hilarious tendency atheists have of thinking they know what they merely believe without evidence.

    Plus, it does not good for me to provide evidence that you have subjectively, based on your personal beliefs, stated will not be allowed. You will have to prove it to make it worth my time.

    ReplyDelete
  9. By the way, it's worth noting that for people schooled in a range of subjects, Richard Dawkins, like Stephen Hawking and other modern non-believers, is one of the poster-children for demonstrating that brilliance in one field of study (science) doesn't protect you from being an idiot in others.

    ReplyDelete
  10. *facepalm*
    I can't find anything you're NOT getting wrong. I'll put them in bullet points so you'll digest it better.

    1) First we can both agree that we operate on logic (because if not, we can't have a coherent conversation).

    2) One of the basic rules of logic (and common sense) is to always assume the negative if no proof is provided. In other words, don't assume anything to start with.

    - a. The first reason is that if we assume the positive, nothing won't be, including raining manatees, huge ants in top hats dancing down the street, and anime girls in real life.

    - b. Another reason is that you cannot prove a negative, which you're demanding me to do. This link explains it perfectly.

    3) Theology is NOT a field of study, because no progress has been made for the last 3 centuries, much like astrology and homeopathy.

    4) You've provided no evidence whatsoever except "Sure God exists, duh. That proves it because I said duh."

    How are those evidence that I "have subjectively, based on your personal beliefs"? Those are basic rules for the human mind to function correctly.

    In a way, we do believe (in this case, "disbelieve" is the right word) what we're supposed to do when there's no proof to suggest otherwise.

    Would you like me to abridge it further?

    ReplyDelete
  11. OK. Let's do it this way. When I was in college I was an agnostic. After a series of debates my senior year, I concluded that many who were atheists seemed to be making leaps of faith as much as were the believers. I still didn't believer, however. Then, the first week of exams, in December of 1989, I was walking home. I was thinking on the different discussions I'd been part of. Almost on a whim, I said 'God, I suppose if you're there, it wouldn't hurt to show me. Do something that says 'you're there.'

    Two days later, on a Thursday evening, I was alone in my apartment (my roommates were gone for different reasons). A group of kids from a religious group came by caroling, and of course witnessing. I let them sing, and listened to them, but I didn't respond or agree to visit their Bible study or any such thing. The only thing I enjoyed was that it was the first time anything like that had happened. I'd never seen real life carolers come by my place before. And nobody had ever really come up to me and invited me to such a thing, despite so many tales I heard about others being accosted by religious people around campus.

    When I went in, I thought on that. And what I had said a couple days earlier. No, I didn't convert on the spot. Or for a long time for that matter. But I realized the fundamental flaw in my own 'prove it' mentality. This thing that happened on that night was a wild coincidence at best. Or at least that's how I saw it. But I realized then that I saw it as a coincidence simply because I didn't believe in an alternative. A believer would say it was the finger of God, or something like it.

    And therein was the "proof". You want proof? You can't have it. Not because you can't or I can't provide it. But because you can't accept it. Your set of beliefs about the subject will interpret such things by your assumptions from the get go. I realized it then. I realized that I had no more reason, based on any evidence in the universe, to say that visit was just dumb luck coincidence than a religious person had for saying it was the will of God answering my prayer. How we interpreted it was based on what we believed in the first place.

    And at that point, I began to realize that the entire notion that I would only believe with some form of proof was an impossibility. For the proof which works wonders in a laboratory, or less so in a court of law, doesn't always work in other arenas of life. Obviously.

    So it's not really a matter of 'prove' God. Prove to me that what happened back then in 1989 was only coincidence and not God. That's not proving a negative. That's proving it was only coincidence. Of course you can't. And that's the point. How you read the evidence is already written by your own assumptions and biases and beliefs. We could toss out truck loads of "evidence" till the cows come home, and it will do nothing.

    In the end, you could simply just say 'coincidence', or 'doesn't prove a thing.' Which it wouldn't. Because religion is not about a laboratory experiment. It's about a model of reality against which the results of laboratory experiments and other phenomena are interpreted. Until you see that, all the evidence in the world will do nothing to change the beliefs you already have. For they are the model of your reality against which all evidence about the topic will be interpreted in the first place. Now do you get it?

    ReplyDelete
  12. "It was a coincidence" is a negative, but "It was the finger of God" is a positive. Please prove it without resorting to anecdotes.

    ReplyDelete
  13. lol u rekt m8 god is a lie && u no it

    ReplyDelete
  14. Uh, no. It is not a negative. Atheists have to get over this sad idea that anything they think on the topic is a negative and therefore not subject to the same proof of evidence they demand. It is a positive claim. If you say X is true, you've made a truth claim. A positive truth claim. You do realize that, right? Saying anything you have to say about the subject is a negative is simply a roundabout way of admitting yours is nothing other than a belief that can't be verified by your own standards. Sort of like insisting that whether you hit or miss, it should still count as a home run. Sure,in your own mind you'll win every game. But not in the real world that atheists boast about living in.

    ReplyDelete
  15. For instance, Anon made the popular atheistic statement 'god is a lie.' That is, of course, a positive truth claim. Anon will have to demonstrate this with evidence. Whether our bold friend realizes it or not.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Ding Dong,
    That is Wrong;
    Eggs and Bacon,
    You're Mistaken.

    What you're doing is commonly called Argumentum Ad Nauseum or the Chewbacca Defense. That essentially means "Since I have nothing better to say, I'll say the same thing over and over till you get tired and I'm right."

    What "it was a coincidence" really means is that we're just resorting to the default of assuming nothing and not linking the correlation to any cause; therefore, it is a negative. "It was God" assumes that what you call "God" exists, which is a positive that you need to prove.

    Remember, anything is coincident till proven otherwise.

    Need I expound more? You're feeding me up.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Neil DeGrasse Tyson Quote BotSeptember 29, 2014 at 7:57 AM

    "It's okay not to know all the answers. It's better to admit our ignorance than to believe answers that might be wrong. Pretending to know everything closes the door to finding out what's really there."

    ReplyDelete
  18. No Japan, I'm trying to get you to step out of the typical atheist comfort zone. So let me keep it quick. I gave you one piece of evidence. In 1989 I quipped if God is there, do something to point me to you. Two days later something that had never happened in my life happened, and pointed me to God. Seems like evidence to me. Certainly from a religious perspective it's almost a slam dunk. And I'm hardly the first to experience such a thing. So evidence. Do you agree? Discuss.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Not to pick on Neil, since I do enjoy his shows, but: http://thefederalist.com/2014/09/18/why-is-wikipedia-deleting-all-references-to-neil-tysons-fabrication/

    ReplyDelete
  20. Ding dong,
    You're still wrong,
    Eggs and bacon,
    Still mistaken.

    1) Correlation is not causation, 2) that is still an anecdote and anecdotes are not evidence, and 3) you're making quite a leap in coherent thought: "Something happened 2 days after I thought something, therefore, God is real." Trust me, if he is real, all-knowing, and omnipotent, he'd do that to me, and had done it to you immediately, like 1 minute later, or an hour at max. I've had that thought countless times, and it worked none.

    No, David, I'm trying to get you to step out of the typical religious comfort zone. You're still saying the same thing (Argumentum ad Nauseum) and refusing to think, much like 99% of all congressmen.

    About the fabrication, "Doesn't matter, science is still real." You're resorting to Ad Hominem to try to render Neil DeGrasse Tyson worthless.

    What makes scientists the best kind of people on earth is their willingness to challenge their own beliefs. No other group of people are willing to instantly and fundamentally change their mind according to new information.

    ReplyDelete
  21. OK, then back to the beginning. God exists. God doesn't exist. What evidence are you looking for. What would show JapanYoshi that truly, God exists?

    ReplyDelete
  22. Part 1

    Again, what evidence have you got? I don't think you have many (if at all), so throw any evidence you have at me.

    What you just described is an anecdote, not evidence.

    I'll simply pull it from an article:

    Evidence is what serves to either support or counter a scientific theory or hypothesis. Such evidence is expected to be empirical evidence and in accordance with scientific method. Standards for evidence vary according to the field of inquiry, but the strength of scientific evidence is generally based on the results of statistical analysis and the strength of scientific controls.

    Oh, excuse me, Princess, I had presumed that only evidence that can be relied on and proven (or disproven) is used anywhere.
    Besides, theology is hardly a science or even a field of study:
    "What has theology ever said that is of the smallest use to anybody? When has theology ever said anything that is demonstrably true and is not obvious? [...] If all the achievements of scientists were wiped out tomorrow, there would be no doctors but witch doctors, no transport faster than horses, no computers, no printed books, no agriculture beyond subsistence peasant farming. If all the achievements of theologians were wiped out tomorrow, would anyone notice the smallest difference? [...] What makes anyone think that “theology” is a subject at all?"
    In short, theology is not a valid firewall to stand behind trying to defend yourself. You're the one that's trying to bring a bicycle to a marathon.

    *facepalm*
    I can't find anything you're NOT getting wrong. I'll put them in bullet points so you'll digest it better.

    1) First we can both agree that we operate on logic (because if not, we can't have a coherent conversation).

    2) One of the basic rules of logic (and common sense) is to always assume the negative if no proof is provided. In other words, don't assume anything to start with.

    - a. The first reason is that if we assume the positive, nothing won't be, including raining manatees, huge ants in top hats dancing down the street, and anime girls in real life.

    - b. Another reason is that you cannot prove a negative, which you're demanding me to do. This link explains it perfectly.

    3) Theology is NOT a field of study, because no progress has been made for the last 3 centuries, much like astrology and homeopathy.

    4) You've provided no evidence whatsoever except "Sure God exists, duh. That proves it because I said duh."

    How are those evidence that I "have subjectively, based on your personal beliefs"? Those are basic rules for the human mind to function correctly.

    In a way, we do believe (in this case, "disbelieve" is the right word) what we're supposed to do when there's no proof to suggest otherwise.

    Would you like me to abridge it further?

    "It was a coincidence" is a negative, but "It was the finger of God" is a positive. Please prove it without resorting to anecdotes.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Part 2

    Ding Dong,
    That is Wrong;
    Eggs and Bacon,
    You're Mistaken.

    What you're doing is commonly called Argumentum Ad Nauseum or the Chewbacca Defense. That essentially means "Since I have nothing better to say, I'll say the same thing over and over till you get tired and I'm right."

    What "it was a coincidence" really means is that we're just resorting to the default of assuming nothing and not linking the correlation to any cause; therefore, it is a negative. "It was God" assumes that what you call "God" exists, which is a positive that you need to prove.

    Remember, anything is coincident till proven otherwise.

    Need I expound more? You're feeding me up.

    Ding dong,
    You're still wrong,
    Eggs and bacon,
    Still mistaken.

    1) Correlation is not causation, 2) that is still an anecdote and anecdotes are not evidence, and 3) you're making quite a leap in coherent thought: "Something happened 2 days after I thought something, therefore, God is real." Trust me, if he is real, all-knowing, and omnipotent, he'd do that to me, and had done it to you immediately, like 1 minute later, or an hour at max. I've had that thought countless times, and it worked none.

    No, David, I'm trying to get you to step out of the typical religious comfort zone. You're still saying the same thing (Argumentum ad Nauseum) and refusing to think, much like 99% of all congressmen.

    About the fabrication, "Doesn't matter, science is still real." You're resorting to Ad Hominem to try to render Neil DeGrasse Tyson worthless.

    What makes scientists the best kind of people on earth is their willingness to challenge their own beliefs. No other group of people are willing to instantly and fundamentally change their mind according to new information.

    There, that's all the different answers I've provided so far to the same fucking question you've been asking for the last 3 days. Happy?

    ReplyDelete
  24. Well said.

    "Evidence is what serves to either support or counter a scientific theory or hypothesis. Such evidence is expected to be empirical evidence and in accordance with scientific method. Standards for evidence vary according to the field of inquiry, but the strength of scientific evidence is generally based on the results of statistical analysis and the strength of scientific controls."

    Now, prove that is true. Prove that all that is real and exists, including the divine and the supernatural, are subject to that definition and only that definition. Provide the evidence and the proof. You have made the claim. Well, you've quoted the claim. Now prove it. Before evidence of God should have to line up to that definition, you have to prove that definition applies to the existence of God. That's what I've been asking from the beginning.

    Remember that great religious profession of faith by the late, great Carl Sagan: The Cosmos is all that is or was or ever will be. Complete faith claim. No evidence at all. That there is a cosmos? Plenty of evidence. That the cosmos is all that was, is or ever will be? Complete faith claim. No evidence at all. At least none that would measure up to the definition you quoted above. And yet it is that faith claim you are assuming, as atheists so often do. To say theology isn't a subject is to begin by saying 'of course the defendant is guilty, now prove he isn't using only evidence that assumes he's guilty.'

    Which is the point. What you call anecdote is part of the reality of the divine. For while logic and reason have their place in seeking the divine, it doesn't end there. Any more than a loving relationship is only about the geographic proximity of two or more biological life forms.

    No atheist worth a grain would say otherwise about human relationships. Same with the divine. The supernatural. The miraculous. Atheists are content with saying 'we can't explain it but you have to prove it's God' Actually I don't. I'm content with saying 'we can't explain it, I believe it is God because I believe when taken as a complete and realistic whole, that answers the most questions.' Atheists are left confessing that 99% of humanity is wrong, the millions of similar experiences are wrong, and that which can't be explained isn't God because all of the evidence is either wrong or doesn't count but can't point to God since it's already assumed God doesn't exist.

    Nope. You can't begin with the faith claims of atheism as the assumed beginning and demand proof of anything counter to atheism. That's like insisting I prove Joe Montana was the greatest quarterback by demanding I prove he hit more home runs than anyone else. You'll have to do better than that.

    Admit that your beliefs are beliefs, provide evidence for why I should remain confined to the parameters you have set, and then we can go from there.

    ReplyDelete
  25. Oh my gosh, I really hope you aren't serious when you call basic principles of logic a "belief".

    ReplyDelete
  26. Thank goodness I didn't. But the parameters in which you are restricting the use of logic is a belief. Or at least based on one. To say 'theology isn't a subject now prove God' is to say 'Joe Montana sucked as a quarterback because he didn't hit any home runs.' If you don't understand that, then yes: Oh. My. Gosh. Indeed. (kudos, BTW, for being on a religious blog and using the term gosh).

    ReplyDelete
  27. Back to the point: if you cannot prove your faith coherently, why believe at all? If your faith only makes sense while doing mental f*cking calisthenics, then you should probably reconsider.

    Perhaps, this could answer all your lack to answer my simple question: a video entitled "Ten Questions Every Intelligent Christian Must Answer". I believed you mentioned "college" in your anecdote, so I think you believe you'd apply.

    "If you are an educated Christian, I would like to talk with you today about an important and interesting question. Have you ever thought about using your college education to think about your faith? Your life and your career demand that you behave and act rationally. Let's apply your critical thinking skills as we discuss 10 simple questions about your religion."

    Remember, I'm quoting other people not because I'm running out of ideas, but because you're still saying the same thing (i.e. nothing) the other religious delusional ones say.

    ReplyDelete
  28. Here's a sneak peek:

    When you use your brain, and when you think logically about your religious faith, you can reach only one possible conclusion: the "god" that you have heard about since you were an infant is completely imaginary. You have to willfully discard rationality, and accept hundreds of bizarre rationalizations to believe in your "god."

    ReplyDelete
  29. You can see the same effect in the following prayer. Let's assume that you are a true believer and you do believe that God cures cancer. What would happen if we get down on our knees and pray to God in this way:

    Dear God, almighty, all-powerful, all-loving creator of the universe, we pray to you to cure every case of cancer on this planet tonight. We pray in faith, knowing you will bless us as you describe in Matthew 7:7, Matthew 17:20, Matthew 21:21, Mark 11:24, John 14:12-14, Matthew 18:19 and James 5:15-16. In Jesus' name we pray, Amen.

    We pray sincerely, knowing that when God answers this completely heartfelt, unselfish, non-materialistic prayer, it will glorify God and help millions of people in remarkable ways. If God cures cancer, then this is an easy prayer for an omnipotent, all-loving God to answer.

    The fact is, what this prayer does is remove ambiguity. As soon as we do that, we see the true nature of "God." There is no way that a coincidence can answer this prayer, and, sure enough, the prayer goes unanswered.

    If you look at the data, you can see exactly what is happening here:

    When we pray to God about any non-ambiguous situation, God never answers the prayer.
    When we analyse any ambiguous prayer using statistical tools, we find zero effect from prayer.
    In other words, every "answered prayer" truly is a coincidence, nothing more. "God" doesn't "answer prayers" at all.

    ReplyDelete
  30. I cannot prove my faith, at least not as you are framing proof. If you don't understand that, then therein lies the problem. Yes, I can demonstrate the reasonableness of faith. I can offer proofs in a Thomistic sense. But those assume certain things, like not confining the evidence to a materialistic world view that rejects the divine or the supernatural outright. And I'm saying the same thing because you are. You're saying prove football using only baseball terminology. It doesn't work. It can't.

    Your video, by the way, is one of the best examples. Why isn't God performing miracles right now? Well, he is. It happens all the time. Doctor comes out and says we don't know how the healing took place but it did. The atheist responds "it's not a miracle, we don't know why it happened!" See what I mean. Perfect example of my point.

    My Grandma was told if she didn't get surgery that she would die. She was 72. She didn't have the operation, fearing she was too old. She lived to be in her late 80s. A miracle? She said she was healed by God. Atheists say no. As I said earlier, the atheist says 'we don't know how it happened, but it isn't a miracle, therefore God doesn't exist.' That is a valuable video. Watch it and think on that.

    ReplyDelete
  31. Normal people: "We don't know."
    Scientists: "We don't know, but we're getting there."
    Atheists: "We don't know, but we're pretty sure it isn't religion."
    Thoughtful people: "We never know."
    The Ancient "Aliens" Guy: "We don't know; therefore, aliens."
    Conspiracy theorists: "We don't know; therefore, Barack Obama."
    Homeopathists: "We don't know; therefore, Big Pharma."
    Christians: "We don't know; therefore, God."

    Do you see the similarity? That could open your eyes for you to see how delusional you have become.

    ReplyDelete
  32. Normal people: If atheists admit they don't know, then why are they pretty sure it isn't religion if that's the type of proof they're looking for?

    Yep. Normal people get the points on that one.

    ReplyDelete
  33. You: "I don't know what he's saying, so I'll whip out the straw man and turn everything into ironic metaphors while denying burden of proof."

    ReplyDelete
  34. Also, I've read over every thoughtful (that was sarcastic) argument (that was sarcastic too) you've written and annotated them so you won't be able to repeat the same stuff you mindlessly repeated for a whole week. https://docs.google.com/document/d/1pBBuSJSXM1Q0FrPqSRhwWbfh4IwYuJT6EhX5JA_XAjo/edit?usp=sharing

    ReplyDelete
  35. You may want to reexamine the idea of the straw man. Pointing out the problem with an atheist who demands proof of God in the form of 'why doesn't God heal anyone?', who when confronted by a recovery that defies medical science responds 'well, we don't know how it could happen, but it probably isn't God!' is not a straw man in the least. It's the essence of the problem at hand. If you don't get that, I'm afraid we're at a stopping point.

    ReplyDelete
  36. Went to your nice little post, but computer wouldn't take my response. Oh well. I tried. Anyhoo, it stays here I guess. You said, through that video, 'if God exists why doesn't he do X.' I said 'here's a case where he did X.' You responded 'that doesn't prove anything because God probably doesn't exist.' That's all anyone schooled in any subject dealing with common sense and logic needs to know. Perhaps you could go to other sources than atheists and blogs that think dropping fallacies that don't apply will win arguments. Remember what a well known Catholic blogger says: there are atheists who use the intellect, but far too many worship it. Don't be one of the second group.

    ReplyDelete
  37. >Pointing out the problem with an atheist who demands proof of God in the form of 'why doesn't God heal anyone?', who when confronted by a recovery that defies medical science responds 'well, we don't know how it could happen, but it probably isn't God!' is not a straw man in the least
    Yes it is. You're probably doing it unknowingly because you have no understanding of the topic or any logic at all. Firstly, amputees have never been healed, and secondly, coincidences do not point to what you call "God".

    >I'm afraid we're at a stopping point
    I'm afraid YOU are at a stopping point. I'm going fine on logic.

    >I said 'here's a case where he did X.' You responded 'that doesn't prove anything because God probably doesn't exist.'
    No, you said "here's a case where it happened somehow, so it must be God", after which I said "That doesn't prove anything because that is most likely a coincidence and it doesn't directly lead to the conclusion of 'God'."

    >That's all anyone schooled in any subject dealing with common sense and logic needs to know
    How ironic.

    >Perhaps you could go to other sources than atheists and blogs that think dropping fallacies that don't apply will win arguments.
    >Remember what a well known Catholic blogger says: there are atheists who use the intellect, but far too many worship it. Don't be one of the second group.

    Let the hypocrisy do its work.

    Question: What proof do you have for what you call "God" to truly, indubitably exist?

    P.S. Guess how old I am.

    ReplyDelete
  38. So your logic is: If there is a God, then provide evidence X to prove it.

    OK, here's evidence X.

    You: Evidence X doesn't mean anything since it could be anything and that doesn't prove God.

    I merely provided X because you linked to a video that says why can't Christians provide X? Of course X happens all the time. So I gave just one of thousands of examples of the X that has been asked for that I personally knew.

    Your response: Doesn't prove a thing. Which was my point about atheists always asking for proof. It's a fool's errand. And you just showed why. There is no proof for someone who doesn't want to believe it. Just like Atticus could have talked until he was blue in the face and proven beyond a doubt that it was her father, but the jury was still going to find Tom guilty. Not because they had to, but because they wanted to.

    ReplyDelete
  39. If you provide faulty proof, you'll only receive an unsatisfying answer.

    Your proof is not empirical evidence, and hence, it does not disprove the thought that God does not exist.

    Have you ever heard of Occam's Razor? I'm sure you'll have a lot of fun thinking for the first time since college.

    ReplyDelete
  40. >OK, here's evidence X.
    Said "evidence" doesn't point towards the point.

    >You: Evidence X doesn't mean anything since it could be anything and that doesn't prove God.
    Good thing you got that through your thick skull.

    >Of course X happens all the time. So I gave just one of thousands of examples of the X that has been asked for that I personally knew.
    Except that in your anecdotes, they don't happen at all. Whoops.

    >Which was my point about atheists always asking for proof. It's a fool's errand.
    You're right on that one; looking for something that doesn't exist won't give you anything.

    >And you just showed why. There is no proof for someone who doesn't want to believe it.
    So you're saying, to be convinced that the belief is true, you must first assume that the belief is true? Your logical fallacy is: Begging the Question Fallacy

    >Just like Atticus could have talked until...
    Your similes are like a group of unemployed people: none of them work.

    You are using the Ham Hightail: hurtling from point to point, ignoring all contrary evidence, and blithely regurgitating the Bible (or unrelated anecdotes) whenever evidence is required. You are also using argumentum ad nauseum, which summarizes into "HeadOn: Apply directly to the forehead. HeadOn: Apply directly to the forehead. HeadOn: Apply directly to the forehead. HeadOn: Apply directly to the forehead. HeadOn: Apply directly to the forehead. HeadOn: Apply directly to the forehead. HeadOn: Apply directly to the forehead. HeadOn: Apply directly to the forehead. HeadOn: Apply directly to the forehead. HeadOn: Apply directly to the forehead. HeadOn: Apply directly to the forehead. HeadOn: Apply directly to the forehead. HeadOn: Apply directly to the forehead.".

    ReplyDelete
  41. "Often, someone will present a new idea and say that it must be accepted because it cannot be disproved. This is insufficient because without evidence there is no reason to accept an idea, even if there is no contrary evidence." - Rational Wiki, on Burden of Proof

    "If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes.
    But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is an intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense.

    If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time." - Bertrand Russell

    ReplyDelete
  42. I stopped reading after awhile since JY started acting more like a cliche than a real person (and can it prove it is a person using evidence and not resorting to anecdote?). The following will suffice until he comes up with something more original.

    "It was a coincidence" is a negative, but "It was the finger of God" is a positive. Please prove it without resorting to anecdotes.
    1) Correlation is not causation, 2) that is still an anecdote and anecdotes are not evidence, and

    I am a blind man. Please prove rainbows exist to me without using anecdotes, only evidence.

    But keep in mind this "anecdotes =/= evidence" routine, it will get hilarious.

    1) First we can both agree that we operate on logic (because if not, we can't have a coherent conversation).

    2) One of the basic rules of logic (and common sense) is to always assume the negative if no proof is provided. In other words, don't assume anything to start with.


    Except #2 contradicts #1. You are operating on the positive that logic exists without proof because logic cannot prove itself. In other words, you cannot follow your own rule 2 because to do so would ultimately be self-refuting (i.e. how do you know positive proof of proof itself exists).

    3) Theology is NOT a field of study, because no progress has been made for the last 3 centuries, much like astrology and homeopathy.

    And how do you know any other progress has been made in any other field of study? Have you personally tested every experiment to verify the results? Or are you going by the anecdotes of those who conducted the study and others that tested it? If you haven't verified all advancements then by your own standard we will have to assume a negative by rule 2 and your earlier stated rules. Again, you've self-defeated.

    4) You've provided no evidence whatsoever except "Sure God exists, duh. That proves it because I said duh."

    And you've provided no evidence of any of your other claims. In fact by your standards, no evidence can ever be provided because it's all ultimately anecdote until you perform or witness tests yourself. So the real question is how can any evidence be provided when by your own standards and methods of logic no evidence can ever exist anywhere of anything?

    3) you're making quite a leap in coherent thought: "Something happened 2 days after I thought something, therefore, God is real." Trust me, if he is real, all-knowing, and omnipotent, he'd do that to me, and had done it to you immediately, like 1 minute later, or an hour at max. I've had that thought countless times, and it worked none.

    1) Why should we trust you? That is an anecdote and as you said, those are not evidence. Thus we cannot trust you.
    2) Why should He do that you or anyone? By that logic you can disprove anyone by saying, "if [they] were real, [they] would hit me right now" and, when most people assume you're crazy, you can be convinced that you are alone on earth.
    3) By your own admission evidence cannot exist (as it is logically paradoxical) so therefore how could God ever provide it to you? He cannot do anything logically impossible. You may as well say, "Make me a five sided-triangle!" and then gasp in eureka that God must not exist.

    In other words, there could be a rainbows filling up the sky and you blind yourself before demanding that others SHOW you them.

    ReplyDelete
  43. While Nate eviscerates you on his terms, I'll keep trying to meet you on your own. I've tried to so far by asking for examples of evidence and providing evidence asked for. But like dealing with most modern atheist, that was a fruitless endeavor. For instance asking what empirical evidence you are looking for. You'd think there would be an answer. But of course there isn't. Because it's not about finding the truth of the issue. Though I don't know if you will ever understand just how many of the positions you've presented are based on unverifiable faith claims.

    I've been trying to get you out of your religious comfort zone, but no dice. Remember, anything is coincident till proven otherwise? Wow. What a faith claim. A south Alabama fundamentalist Baptist King James Only preacher would be hard pressed to pop off a subjective belief statement like that. And yet, I don't know if you even realize that's an unverifiable faith claim. Probably not.

    Truth be told, I haven't read all your ramblings. I've read more today. Love the appeals to Logical Fallacies.com. The reliance on Dawkinisms. And I'm still laughing at the opinion that scientists are the best kind of people on earth. I was going to make fun of it, but I couldn't add anything that would make it funnier than it is. I mean, that statement is a combination of subjective opinion and near hero worship, and yet it's presented as some form of undeniable law of reality. As are so many of your beliefs and faith claims. The doom of the modern atheist I guess.

    I was asked how old I think you are. Hard to say. My guess is somewhere between 12 and 17. But modern atheists, when defending against the fact that their beliefs are just beliefs, often end up acting the same way, so it's tough to call.

    Anyway, it was worth a shot.

    ReplyDelete
  44. Guys, I was mistaken about atheism. I found out that it was my Capybara Plushie that made the world and created everything, not God.

    Now can you disprove that?

    ReplyDelete
  45. Nate and Daft David, the logorrhea you call comments are annotated and thoroughly refuted on here. Here's a sneak peek:

    >3) By your own admission evidence cannot exist (as it is logically paradoxical) so therefore how could God ever provide it to you? He cannot do anything logically impossible. You may as well say, "Make me a five sided-triangle!" and then gasp in eureka that God must not exist.
    I'm fine. You're being paradoxical because you have no understanding of what constitutes as "reliable evidence". Triangles are by definition a shape with three sides; they also cannot lead directly to Big Guy in the Sky™.

    ReplyDelete
  46. Childish insults to avoid the points made. The last desperate act of a crumbling atheist grasping at laughable reasoning and hoping nobody will notice. Very simple Japan. Prove all of your truth claims using your own standards for proving truth claims. Begin. And no cowardly slinking away behind silly comebacks and embarrassing Dawkinisms please. Be an adult. Deal with your own standards by your own standards. Prove. Each childish insult and immature dodging of the issue simply confirms that you know you're beaten, just unwilling to admit it. And nothing shows this more than that wonderful list you've been keeping.

    Rise to the challenge. Otherwise, there's no point continuing. Since a person unwilling to use the same standards placed upon others is beyond being reasoned with. Remember, we're not the ones who started by saying 'prove it.' Show us you're actually sane enough to see the problems. Otherwise we just can't waste any more time, for it is the stuff life is made of.

    ReplyDelete
  47. Childish insults to avoid the points made. The last desperate act of a crumbling Christian grasping at laughable reasoning and hoping nobody will notice. Very simple, David. Prove all of your insults using your nonexistent standards for proving truth claims. Begin. And no cowardly slinking away behind silly comebacks and embarrassing logorrhea please. Be an adult. Deal with your own standards by your own standards. Prove. Each childish insult and immature dodging of the issue simply confirms that you know you're beaten, just unwilling to admit it. And nothing shows this more than that website of wonderful "thoughts" you've been keeping.

    Rise to the challenge. Otherwise, there's no point continuing. Since a person unwilling to use the same standards placed upon others is beyond being reasoned with. Remember, we're not the ones who started by saying 'Prove logic using logic.' Show us you're actually sane enough to see the problems. Otherwise we just can't waste any more time, for it is the stuff life is made of.

    See what I did there? I've completely turned around your comment and it still works, which means everything you said here is a childish insult and laughable reasoning.

    ReplyDelete
  48. I've not insulted. Or do you not even know what an insult is? And yes, I see what you did. Just what Nate saw. That you've dodged the issue from the beginning. Which is why your charge of ad nauseam is wrong. It's not ad nauseam to repeat yourself when the person in the debate refuses to deal with the points you've made. Which you've done. I merely asked what proof you've wanted. You responded with the typical answers given by atheists who are uninformed. You said prove it based upon the assumption that atheism is right and the default truth. That won't do. So I simply tried, with various approaches, to break you out of your faith claim and admit that's what it is. Atheists know that of course. There are atheists who know atheism is a belief, and will actually approach religion on its own terms (and won't say stupid things like 'prove God' or 'just show where God heals' since they know there are a million things science can't explain). And they know it's foolish to stake a belief on 'science has explained everything except the things science can't explain so there's probably not a God.'

    And it's not begging the question to point out what informed atheists admit: that atheism is a belief. Now, you can play the games, but I have no time for it. Or you can actually want to learn. If so, I'm hear for as long as it takes. But invoking the legendary Dawkins guffaw inducing 'the subject I'm famous for debating isn't a subject' shows you're wasting everyone's time, including your own. So the ball is in your court. Got the guts to at least show exactly what proof you want and prove why you should want it? Or is this it?

    If you're willing to step out of the modern atheist bubble and dispense with the silly 'oh yeah, prove God' rubbish, we can move forward.

    ReplyDelete
  49. Don't post in early mornings! I'm also here for as long as it takes. :)

    ReplyDelete
  50. I'm fine. You're being paradoxical because you have no understanding of what constitutes as "reliable evidence".

    I have a perfect understanding of what constitutes as reliable evidence, I was pointing out that you - by your own standards and admissions, do not.

    Triangles are by definition a shape with three sides; they also cannot lead directly to Big Guy in the Sky™.

    Yes they are, hence the use of a metaphor.

    Also, I said nothing about them pointing or leading to God, it was merely an expressed metaphor to convey a point: God cannot accomplish something logically contradictory, like making A and not-A the same thing.

    Hmmm... annotations...

    This is a tad bit off-topic, but I'll humor you a bit. Rainbows do not "exist" for people without the ability to sense lightwaves, because they are just a phenomenon caused by the refraction of light. Much like how logic doesn't exist for people without the ability to think critically.

    Ah, well then argument done. All things are relative, there is no truth. God does not "exist" for people without the ability to sense or believe Him, therefore while He does exist for Dave or me or many billions of other people, but for you and the rest of the blind, He does not. All done.

    There, the statement that I've made does not use any anecdotes.

    Actually it does since the blind man has to accept your anecdote that lightwaves exist and can be refracted. You provided no evidence for him.

    It doesn't. If you ever doubt to assume the negative, you are either extremely gullible or extremely stupid.

    Baseless assertion, still no evidence. In other words, you keep refuting yourself. In fact, given your repeated demonstration on fallacies and lack of real critical thinking, I can only conclude that, like you've said, Logic does not exist for you. Therefore you have refuted your own premise #1. Therefore this is concluded.

    ReplyDelete
  51. Whoops forgot to add:

    Nate and Daft David, the logorrhea you call comments are annotated and thoroughly refuted on here.

    Yeah, if you consider posting lots of non-sequiturs as "thoroughly refuted".

    Next JY will give us his top 10 hits of 1986 as proof he can actually read.

    (seriously, why are those who claim to be most faithful to logic almost always the worst at it? it's like a nerd that claims he's totally married to Hermoine... because he's written a lot of fanfics and stalks Emma Watson on the internet)

    ReplyDelete
  52. My jaw dropped with the rainbow statement, too. But if this keeps up, I'll have to put a stop to this Nate. It's getting ugly what you're doing to JY. I tried to be the nice guy, and simply get JY out of the old atheist comfort zone of 'assume atheist models of reality and prove God.' But the usual 'illogical response, contradiction, personal insult, more illogical responses, misuse logical fallacies found on the internet, wiki-quote, obligatory internet quote, personal insults.' And now you've come in and devastated his arguments. Next time someone tries to be nice about it, perhaps he'll work with it. A humble and wiser JY might be worth it all.

    ReplyDelete
  53. Well, you've proven it enough for me: Christians believe the fictional book called the Bible because they have been raised being told it is the absolute truth, and haven't thought about it once. It shows in how you don't have the slightest idea how logic works. You keep talking about "the silly 'oh yeah, prove God' rubbish", which signifies that you have been taught to dispense with others' basic human rights to think critically. What's worse is, you have no idea how much non-sequitur you have used.

    I'll count this as another case where two bakas using the Chewbacca Defense "won" against legitimate reasoning. Congratulations, Ken Ham II.

    "If you can shock or confuse your opponent and make them think you are a lost cause and not worth arguing with, you are right.
    If you can make your opponent give up on arguing with you, because you appear too crazy to understand them and/or don't seem to be listening, then they must be wrong and you must be right." - RationalWiki, "Chewbacca Defense", Common (and sad) examples

    ReplyDelete
  54. And if I hadn't been an agnostic who converted after college, you'd almost have a devastating point! Absolutely marvelous. Once again, your hand picked reality that you think protects your personal beliefs falters before the withering assault of the real thing. Well done Nate. Next time when someone like me tries to be nice and work with you, maybe you won't invoke modern Dawkins/Harris idiocy sprinkled with adolescent behavior and bad internet references. Or else another Nate will come in again and smack you down to a whimpering mess. And feel free to put this on your list as well.

    ReplyDelete
  55. Well, you've proven it enough for me: Christians believe the fictional book called the Bible

    Where did I ever say anything about what I believe? Evidence or anecdote?

    So far you seem to be the only one around here arguing for things without evidence.

    ReplyDelete
  56. I'm not even mad. I'm amazed by your inability to tell anecdotes from self-evident facts, and your inability to tell how ironic and unintellectual you sound. You're a lost cause, but that doesn't mean you are right. Even if you disappeared today, the world won't become a tad bit worse; in fact, the world's average IQ will go up two notches.

    ReplyDelete
  57. Nate, did you read that last one? I love it. The essence of JY's posts has been 'prove God!' Us: 'What proof do you want' JY: 'You're dumb!' I love atheists who can't grasp the reality of their own faith claims. Hopefully you swing back and see this. I'm thinking of printing this out and distributing it to churches in the area. Talk about reinforcing religious belief.

    ReplyDelete

Let me know your thoughts