Wednesday, September 28, 2011

Andrew the Atheist wants more dragons!!

Gee, Tim, you’re moving awful fast.  I never got a chance to say why I think belief in itself is a detriment to society and not beneficial.  Nor did we fully explore your “faith=trust” baloney.  You want me to disprove god.  You’ve never addressed the dragon in my pants.  You just dismiss my evidence for “some reason”.  Now you want to go through all the apologetics I hoped to cover in the first post?  Slow down.  We’ve all the time in the world.



Hmmm..  Perhaps I can do a little magic here…..

Is it a red herring, or a dragon?

How’s this, Tim?  I’ve asserted there is a dragon in my pants.  I have just realized that I never explained how amazing this dragon is.  Did you know the dragon has a father?  Indeed, the dragon in my pants has an all-powerful, all-knowing, creator of the universe father.  He is the Super Mega Awesome Dragon, or SMAD, for short.  Further, Godzilla is also a major player here.  Invisible, yet green, Godzilla completes the trinity of dragons that rule the universe.  So if you insist on playing apologetics, here’s my rebuttal to them all:

1. The cosmological argument: There must have been a “first cause” or “prime mover” and this first cause we identify as SMAD.

2. The teleological argument: essentially this is the intelligent design argument. The world we live in is complex. Because it is so complex, it stands to reason that here must have been a creator. This creator was SMAD.

3. The argument from experience (includes the arguments from beauty, love, and religious experience): some experiences are best explained by the existence of SMAD.

4. The argument from morality: any objective morality depends on the existence of SMAD.

5. The ontological argument: SMAD is a "being greater than which cannot be conceived"; therefore, there must be SMAD.

6. The transcendental argument: logic, science, ethics, and other serious matters do not make sense in the absence of SMAD. Adraconic arguments must ultimately refute themselves if pressed with rigorous consistency.

7. The will to believe doctrine: belief in a SMAD “works”, thus there must be a SMAD.

8. The argument from reason: Reason is not the result of physical phenomena. If naturalism were true, there would be no way to know it. There must, therefore, be a SMAD.


Now, if you insist that I must disprove your god to be an atheist, please disprove SMAD, Godzilla, and the dragon in my pants.  Then, I’ll use your method.


And yes, you missed many.  Look here:  http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php?title=Main_Page

10 comments:

  1. This blog has lost all credibility and has turned into complete ridiculousness, you guys should just quit and Tim, sometimes you need to know when you are just wasting your time and dealing with nonsense.

    ReplyDelete
  2. "This blog has lost all credibility and has turned into complete ridiculousness"

    Implying it wasn't ridiculous from the start?

    ReplyDelete
  3. I tend to disagree I think this line of argument illustrates a pretty interesting point and I think that is the reason for the dismissive tone of the other posts in this thread.

    To an atheist invisible sky daddy claims are every bit as silly as dragon in the pants claims.

    They are equally unsupported by what qualifies as objective evidence and by objective evidence I am not talking about Tim's secret pretend evidence (you know the stuff he is yet to share) no instead I am talking about something you don't have to already be indoctrinated to believe.

    There is no evidence God created the Earth
    Lack of knowledge doesn't = God did it
    It just = lack of knowledge

    You have to provide evidence for the existence of God that isn't just an argument about what we as people don't know, because that doesn't cut the mustard any number of silly ridiculous explanations are every bit as plausible as your invisible sky daddy is.

    Further don't use apologetic arguments that have already been refuted. Don't use the "the bible is true because the bible says it is" argument because that is circular reasoning.
    Don't argue from personal experience as we have no way of verifying that what you say happened actually happened as you say it did and wasn't either a hallucination or an outright lie. Andrew might tell you he felt the dragons presence what difference does that make he could be crazy or lying it doesn't change the fact that you don't believe him

    Further still don't argue that faith improves your life as this has no bearing on whether or not religious claims are actually true.
    Andrew's life can be made better by whatever dogma is attached to his smad that doesn't make smad anymore real does it?

    Literally logic or science are your only options. Those are your only paths to proving the existence of god to the satisfaction of an objective non believer.
    We don't give a shit about your feelings or your personal experience we want hard evidence not conjecture and not more bullshit we have already heard before.

    If you think about what you believe objectively, you know it is absolute bullshit which is why religious people will go to great lengths to make sure they never do that.

    ReplyDelete
  4. I agree with the first comment this blog has become rediculous unless Andrew is willing to discuss the character of SMAD in some serious way. He has agreed (sorta) that there must be a first cause. He wants to call it SMAD. Well what are the properties of this SMAD. Then we can really go somewhere. But unfortunatly I think Andrew only wants to make a joke of the first cause because athiesm has no logical or scientific explanation of first cause. Everything has to be scientific except the first cause....

    ReplyDelete
  5. rediculous ?

    you mean ridiculous right

    ....like arguing something can't come from nothing
    therefor there obviously must be a god who came from nothing
    ...that created everything ?

    ...something can't come from nothing
    god came from nothing ...?
    ....something can't come from nothing
    ...god came from nothing...?

    FUCK !!!!
    should i repeat it again or do you see why that's fucking stupid ?

    if god can come from nothing then something can come from nothing
    if something can come from nothing then what is your argument again?


    there are a number of competing scientific explanations for how the universe came to be
    that do not posit ridiculous unproven nonsensical fairy tale variables like invisible magic men in the sky

    if you think
    i am being a dick and making fun of you
    you are absolutely right because
    i am
    religion is a GIANT FUCKING SHORT CUT TO THINKING

    atheists and scientists not knowing something and admitting that they do not know

    doesn't make your stupid fucking occams razor violating claim anymore valid

    what is more likely:

    A. objective scientists whose lives are dedicated to finding the answers to these questions still don't know all the answers
    but
    you a regular jagoff who can't even fucking spell the word ridiculous
    a guy who really really really really wants his invisible friend to be real
    ...you're the one who knows the truth?

    or

    B. they don't know yet and you don't either
    but you are either too stupid
    too deluded
    or too completely full of shit to admit it?

    ...i am going to go with B lulz

    the real problem here is that people like you see something you don't understand and rather than try to figure it out (like scientists do) or be honest and admit that you don't know (like atheists do)

    you take a giant short cut to thinking and say that you do know
    and then pretend that your magic invisible friend did it

    but you don't have any fucking evidence for that
    or any evidence that said magic invisible friend is even fucking real

    the first cause argument is just like any other god of the gaps argument and like the rest of them it
    fails when it is held up to any sort of objective scrutiny

    it is literally nothing more than an appeal to ignorance and some seriously misguided wishful thinking

    ReplyDelete
  6. I have been weighing whether to delete the above comment because of the profanity. This is supposed to be a civil discourse. If you cannot argue civilly, please do not leave a comment. I have left this because if you atheists want to represent yourself this way, then I think the world should see that. And you wonder why there is the term, "Angry Atheist".

    ReplyDelete
  7. lolz for what it is worth i am sorry but
    i don't know anybody over the age 10 who gets offended by the use of profanity

    beyond that
    i am offended
    because people like you believe in an invisible man who lives in the sky
    and you think that we are all dumb enough to take that position seriously
    (but you have the nerve to say smad is "silly" lolz)

    i am sorry but i find that be offensive
    because i see it and the weak outdated easily refuted arguments you make to support it
    as an insult to any intelligent person who happens to read what you say


    no i don't at all wonder why there is the term "angry atheist"
    i know exactly why that term exists
    it exists for the the same reason there is the term "black militant" or "feminazi"

    anytime a minority group stands up calls bullshit and starts pointing out privilege
    or challenging the positions of a spoiled privilege blind majority
    that group gets labeled as angry, militant, or extremist

    what if the term fits ?
    so fu....uhhhh
    fracking what ?

    i absolutely think atheists have every right to be angry

    ohh noooooz the big mean angry atheist said a "bad" word on an internet thread and got a little snarky
    when confronted with stupidity

    so?

    angry religious people
    fly planes into buildings blow up abortion clinics
    harass gay people
    kill rape victims etc...

    hell they don't even have to be angry to do some of the horrible shi....uhh stuff they do i.e.
    mutilating peoples genitalia threatening children with eternal damnation
    denying children medical care because "god will save them" etc...

    whether i am angry or not is irrelevant

    religion is a short cut to thinking .

    ReplyDelete
  8. Right, I did mean ridiculous, never was a good speller.

    Something came from nothing? God never came from nothing, He always was. This is a subtle difference I know, but different non the less when talking about things coming from nothing.

    Also as an atheist you require all things to be scientifically verifiable. Something coming from nothing can not be scientifically verified(as far as I understand science). So the statement “competing scientific explanations for how the universe came to be” seems very illogical.

    On the other hand I do not require that all things must be scientifically verifiable so can accept God existing forever. This does not mean logic is thrown out the window, it is logic that pushes me in this direction. I can not except science telling me that the universe started from nothing because it is completely illogical. In order to maintain logic and consistency I am pushed toward a belief in God.

    Now when you say “be honest and admit that you don't know (like atheists do)” are you saying you don't know how the universe started so I might be right?

    ReplyDelete
  9. "God always was?" why can't the multiverse have always been ?

    you claim to be logical but then have no problem whatsoever positing a being that violates logic

    concerning competing scientific explanations i am not sure how a matter of fact can be illogical it is a matter of fact that there are competing ideas and theories about how the universe came about
    stephen hawking made news recently for supporting one of them in his book the grand design

    yes i am saying "i don't know"
    but my not knowing doesn't make your position any less ridiculous
    because you don't know either

    the difference is i admit i don't know
    where you just say "magic man done it" because that is what you have been indoctrinated to believe

    ReplyDelete
  10. Yes, the multiverse could have always been. But if the multiverse is going to be your explanation for the first cause of our universe then you have stepped outside of “scientific explanations”. As stated in wikipedia, the multiverse “is the hypothetical set of multiple possible universes”. Someone uses the multiverse as an explanation because it works within our current understanding and it deals with the highly improbable nature of evolution. This and others are not scientific explanations because we can not scientifically examine or reproduce the beginning of the universe or anything before that time.
    I agree that it must be frustrating for you to discuss something with someone who acts like they know all the answers, but understand that I can not take the same stand as you and say “I don't know for sure” this is not an option that has been left open for me. When we look at the idea of the multiverse it is easy to say “I don't know” because when William James (and others who have added to the idea) have expressed their ideas they have expressed them as hypothetical. When the authors of the Bible wrote their books/letters they did not say this was hypothetical, they said it was fact and they usually lived and died for the principles that they wrote down. They either made things up and were crazy enough to die for the things they made up(and the whole thing is nonsense) or had some serious compelling reasons for writing.

    ReplyDelete