Sunday, October 23, 2011

Andrew the Atheist wonders if Tim knows how to read.

Tim, if you haven’t read my responses to your insanely ridiculous idea that atheists need to provide positive proof there is no god, you have not been paying attention.  I have addressed this over and over and over and over.  You keep stating this as though it is a valid point, and it is not.  You are not getting it.  I’ve tried to explain this to you nicely, using metaphor and example, over and over.  Here’s a quick re-cap.  You can find all these quotes in my previous posts here in this blog.

In my very FIRST post in this blog, I said:

"If we cannot prove the existence of god, we HAVE NO GOOD REASON for believing he exists." You may have bad reasons, but without evidence, you have no good reason for believing it.

In my post about Thor, I said:

Your argument is bad logic, and you seem to know it.  It is an argument from ignorance, just as you suggest.  The argument from ignorance fallacy is NOT that if the atheist cannot disprove god, then god must exist.  That fallacy shifts the burden of proof from the one making the claim to the one considering the claim.  The argument from ignorance states that if I have no answer for how the universe began, then it is rational to assume a god or deity is the reason the universe began.  That IS indeed the argument you make, and that is why it fails before you even state it fully.

Then I began the Dragon in my Pants argument:

You are trying to shift the burden of proof to the atheist.  You cannot.  Atheism is the default position.  No one is born believing in a god.  We are all born atheists.  It takes instruction, or indoctrination, to believe in a god.  You make the positive claim that god exists.  The burden is on you to show this god is real.  Without the evidence you admit you do not have, there is no rational reason to believe a god exists.

I said that because I said faith is delusional:

If you have evidence, what need have you of faith?  If faith is a way of knowing things, why is it ONLY employed when evidence is lacking?  For example, take the claim the sun is a star.  You have evidence that this is true.  Do you believe it  is based on faith?  Say you met a person who didn't know the sun was a star, and you assert the fact.  The person doesn't believe you.  Do you ask the person to take a leap of faith, or do you present evidence?  Say you present your evidence does not convince the person.  Do you THEN ask the person to take a leap of faith, or do you discover why the person is not convinced, and show further evidence?  When is faith needed?  When evidence is lacking

And in the next post:

Now, the atheist has no requirement to prove gods do not exist.  Remember what happened when I asserted I have a dragon in my pants?  What happened?  No one believed me.  People demanded real evidence and did not accept my anecdote.  So should it be with gods, and I think gods should be HARDER to prove than a dragon in my pants.

And the next:

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 the next:

Now, I have also asked you to disprove SMAD.  When you can, I'll just use your method to disprove your god. Until then, by your logic, and your positions, you should believe the SMAD exists.  You have no way to show it does not.  I have provided evidence it exists.  So it should be more rational to believe the SMAD is real than to be an atheist in regards to SMAD.  You don't think so?  Why not?  I assert it is only because your god claims are more familiar than the dragon claims.  While they both hold as much weight as each other, you find your beliefs to be rational only because they are more familiar, not because they are actually rational.

Now that I look at all these, I wonder, did you ever really address any of these rebuttals?  Or did you just ignore them?   Did you just brush them off like you did with Mande’s beautifully written rebuttal to the question of purpose?  That was a phenomenal piece, poignant and insightful.  You pissed her away without even acknowledging her points. 

Now, I would be remiss if I didn’t point out that the definition of atheism you are using is only accurate when you address me, not atheists in general.  I am a strong atheist.  I believe god does not exist.  That is different than weak atheism, which would mean I do not believe a god exists.  There is a difference.  Strong atheism asserts no gods; weak atheism rejects the belief in gods.  The difference is subtle, but important, at least, to the atheist community.

Again, I am a strong atheist, so your point is valid but only to me, not to the other atheists on the blog.  And to this I retort, you don’t think dragons are real.  You think they are imaginary.  You are a strong adraconist.  Or are you agnostic toward the dragon in my pants? 

Oh, and the agnostic thing.  I don’t believe in agnostics.  I don’t think they exist.  Every self-described agnostic I’ve ever met has either been a pussy atheist or a pussy theist.  


  1. Stupification, comparing the evidence for the God of the bible to the Dragon in his pants. STUPID, STUPID. Group up, this is a red herring and would not work on any serious debate. If other Atheists can't see the difference, they are just lying to themselves.

    Again, why do you believe in abiogenesis, you haven't seen it, yet you believe it, then you are just as irrational in your believe.

    For the rest of he Atheists, please listen to Tim before you answer, he never life is meaningless to you, he said its origin is purposeless, its just random, and according to you all over the universe, so in fact, yo are very unimportant, you are just a random fact, waiting to be replaced by the nest best thing in evolution.

    Please, come on, prove this amazing evolution you seem o believe in so much, come on, lets see what you got!!!

  2. Hey Andrew, lets hear this evidence for the dragon in your pants since you want to keep using this stupid idea. Has anyone seen this dragon? Has this dragon send any messages that are recorded in history?, does this dragon have a voice, has he claim to have done anything? Has this dragon's history been around since the beginning of the world? Are you willing to die claiming that this dragon is real? Are you saying that as you have claimed, this imaginary dragon is real, (maybe you need to check oxymoron in the dictionary, you have claimed it is imaginary, yet you want people to believe in it, OK)

    you have nothing but rhetoric and make believe scenarios as comebacks. Remember we believe in other supernatural beings such as angels, and we don't worship them, so your dragon or the spaghetti monster are meaningless to the debate. Are you at least admitting to the fact that Tim's points actually point to a supernatural being?

    You seem to be stuck on a marry-go-round!!

    Again, prove Dark Matter to me, prove Oort cloud to me. Prove abiogenesis, prove macro-evolution.

    YOU GOT NOTHING, but you believe because your evolutionist worldview demands you to believe such things.


  3. Since you like links so much, here is your spaghetti monster...

    BTW, the biggest Atheist Dawkins refuses to debate this man

  4. Wow, what a tiresome non-debate. First of all, there are a number of false conclusions. First, that aTHIESM (disbelief in or denouncement of theism) implies aDEISM (no deities, no god). An ATHEIST need only refute the beliefs of theology to prove his/her position.

    The atheist's historic position has always been that the existence of god is irrelevant and unknowable because all the tenets of the theologies which seek to describe god are false logically. That doesn't mean that the atheist cannot say 'there is no god' when referring to the christian god, or the Hindu gods, or the Sumerian gods, and so-forth. The abstract concept of god, however (like in Sikhism) is impossible to prove or disprove, however.

    The second false conclusion I've seen on this blog is that confidence in the theory of evolution AUTOMATICALLY implies atheism, and vice-versa. The fact is, the two ideas are independent of one another. If you don't believe me, ask the Pope.

  5. Wow. That dude is seriously trying to refute the spaghetti monster using such reasoning as 'its a physical object, so it can't have existed before the big bang'. No wonder Dawkins won't debate with the idiot.

    Nobody actually described FSM's physical nature in the initial parody.

    Creationism in all its forms is anti-science. Instead of starting with no premises and using the evidence to derive a conclusion, it begins with a conclusion, and seeks to form the evidence around it.

    Inclusive arguments can be the beginning of theory, but they cannot be the end. They cannot definitively explain phenomena.

  6. "Creationism in all its forms is anti-science. Instead of starting with no premises and using the evidence to derive a conclusion, it begins with a conclusion, and seeks to form the evidence around it."

    This is completely false, it uses observational evidence to reach a conclusion, the fact is that you don't like the conclusion. Creationism does't say, I believe in Creationism, there here is the proof. If you see a computer, how do you know it was created? It isn't because you believed it before, but because you understand complex things don't put themselves together or occur by chance, randomness leads to chaos, not specified complexity.

    Also the "idiot" you speak of above is very well known and did already chew up Dawkins once before, he just wont debate him again.

    The only idiots are those who believe blindly in anything pseudoscience has to say even when they have to correct themselves time after time after time. Science has to be repeatable and observable in a lab.

  7. Andrew says

    "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."

    Interesting, it seems to be that Andrew actually believes in God, he just happens to call him SMAD. This is pretty good improvement in agreeing that a supernatural being exists.

  8. ^ andrew never actually said any of those were good arguments
    he simply said they could be made on behalf of any fairy tale creature no matter how stupid it is

    all of the apologetic arguments for god listed above have been refuted a thousand times over

    i think a big point of this blog was that andrew was hoping tim would come with something better than that
    and he still hasn't

    instead he and the other posters on these threads have stuck to arguments from that list and they have failed to make them in anyway that hasn't already been refuted

    ad nauseum

  9. ad nauseum... I agree, not all of them have been refuted, you can say they have been, but they haven't.

    Andrew wants to hear something new, well so does Tim, Atheists use the same old spaghetti monster time and time again.

  10. Wow, "Andrew the Atheist wonders if Tim knows how to read"

    This sounds like a very civilized debate.