Friday, November 4, 2011

Andrew the Atheist grows weary of Tim repeating arguments that have been refuted in this blog already.

Tim, you’re making me repeat myself.  That’s VERY annoying.  Try READING.  Slow down and flipping READ.  Get out a dictionary if I type a big word. 

Tim said, “Atheists' argument is that there is insufficient proof to believe in the existence of God, and therefore, a theist is somehow wrong in believing in God.”

Right.  There is insufficient proof for the existence of any god, let alone a specific god.  This is why I make the references to the dragon in my pants, the SMAD, Godzilla and the Dragonzord.  Would you not agree that you do not believe these things are real due to a lack of evidence?  Would you not say that the evidence I have provided for the existence of SMAD has not been convincing?  So would I say your evidence for a god has been unconvincing.

Tim said later, “We provide what we deem credible EVIDENCE for the existence of God. It is just that the atheist does not accept such evidence.  The real question is why the theist accepts such evidence, but the atheist refuses to accept such evidence.”

What you deem to be credible is not credible.  It does not become credible because it convinces you.  It must stand on its own merit.  Your evidence has failed every time.  Many times it is an argument from ignorance, but sometimes it is simple foolishness.

I think Tim was trying to produce evidence when he said:

1. How is it more rational to believe that the earth came from nothing than to believe that God created it?
2. Similarly, given the immense complexity of our bodies, of nature, and of the universe, how is it rational to believe that these systems were not designed?
3.  What is your basis for morality if you truly believe there is no God?
4. With some notable exceptions, a belief in God tends to make people better. Why will you not accept that as proof of God's existence?
5.  It seems that your standard for truth is science, yet I believe that science (a) does not answer every question, and (b) actually points to the existence of God.  Why do you believe differently? 

Well, what do we have here?  Crap we’ve gone over before.  Just re-hashing old refuted arguments, in the same dang blog, even.  Yes, folks, we have gone back to the same crap we went over when we talked about Thor.  Here’s another quote from my response to the “more rational to believe the earth was created” idiocy:

Let's say I concede.  I don't, really, but let's say for the sake of argument that I do.  We'll look past the first error.  So we are looking for a creator.  How do you determine which creator it is?  Was it Zeus, Jupiter, chtulu, a giant space turtle, a huge world tree, the flying spaghetti monster, Brahma, Odin, a magic bunny, leprechauns, pixies, invisible pick unicorn, Tiamat, etc?  How can you tell the difference?  If you could use this design argument for the existence of other gods, is it really that good of an argument?  If we could end up with the flying spaghetti monster as the creator, is that really the argument that supports the christian position?

Now in case you missed it, I don’t really concede this point.  I do so only to illustrate that if you start looking for creators, you get in trouble fast.  You eventually have to concede that the SMAD or the flying spaghetti monster and the christian god are all equally likely candidates for the creator of the universe.  And I would actually agree with that.  Your god is as likely to exist as the dragon in my pants.

Point 2:

If complexity only comes about from design, then it stands to reason that the designer would have to be MORE complex than the designed.  Who designed your designer?  No one?  So your god is LESS complex than my butthole?  No?  How does your god escape the logic of the argument that is supposed to support his existence?  He doesn’t?  Seems like a bad argument to me.

Point 3

I explained how morality works.  Here, I’ll post it again.
Finally, I want to get to why I think atheism grants a superior ethical and moral platform.  It is the duty of every person to develop, investigate, construct, analyze and evaluate a personal code of ethics.  We must be able to look at our code, and modify it if needed.   We have to be able to say that we were wrong.  Slavery was once the norm; now we are appalled at the notion.   Inter-racial marriage was once outlawed.  Now we see to outlaw this is immoral.  We must allow our morality and ethics to evolve and change, or watch them stagnate and fail.

If we think our morality is dictated to us in some ancient holy book, why would we ever attempt to grow?  If we think we can be forgiven of any wrong doing, why attempt to make amends?  If we think salvation is not granted by works, why work?

I find that atheism has its own “good news”:  it is the good news of personal responsibility.  We are responsible to each other, for we are the ones who will make the world what it is and what it will be.  Humans are not responsible to a god, but to each other.  God isn’t here; we are.  And while it has no bearing on the truth of that statement, it pleases me greatly.  It inspires me to get off my knees and roll up my sleeves. 

Point 4

I don’t think belief in irrational things is beneficial.  I thought I explained that.  Are you reading ANYTHING?!  Are all my posts now just going to be copy and pastes of my previous posts?  When are YOU going to address ANYTHING I assert?  Besides, this is really irrelevant.  Even IF belief is beneficial, that does NOT make it true.
Imagine I am a member of government.  Imagine I want to pass legislation that allows for SMAD doctrine to be taught in science class along with real science.  Imagine I think that universe was created when the SMAD laid an egg and out hatched the universe.  I want this theory to be taught as an alternative to evolution.  Is this detrimental to society?

Imagine I am a leader of a congregation of draconists.  Imagine I tell my congregation to vote for a particular candidate because they will uphold traditional draconian principles. I want to elect people who will acknowledge this is a draconian nation and it was built on the basic tenants of SMAD law.  Would this be beneficial?

Imagine I am a parent who has young children.  I want my kids to also know SMAD's eternal love and be saved from the Dragonzord.  I tell my kids that they must adhere to the strict teachings of the SMAD, or the Dragonzord will rise up and get them.  I tell my young kids that the Drgonzord wants to torture them for all eternity if they turn from the teachings of the SMAD.  Is this good for kids to hear?

I tell people that the Dragonzord is going to destroy the world.  I tell them that to stop this from happening, they must commit vile acts of violence and evil.  They do so.  Is this helpful?

I sell people dragon blood, which will cure all diseases from cancer to herpes to headaches to small penis size.  People buy the stuff by the truckload.  I make billions of dollars each year which I use to further the dragonic causes in politics and government.  Am I helping?

Point 5

Science does not answer every question.  Science answers questions that it can with a method to find errors and correct them.  Whenever you’d like to present scientific evidence that points to god, I’d be willing to consider it.  I’ll remind you: you have admitted that you do not possess such evidence.  Are you going to make up your mind?

And what the flippy hell is this?  “If you think about it, when the atheist says, "You cannot prove God exists, therefore He must not exist," this really is a form of an argument from ignorance that the atheists say the Christians are guilty of.”
If this statement were true, Tim, you would believe in the dragon in my pants.  You would believe in SMAD, the flying spaghetti monster, Krishna, Vishnu, Tiamat, Maat, Baal, Ra, Thor, etc.  If NOT being able to prove the existence of a thing is NOT a valid reason for DISBELIEF, nothing is.  You must therefore believe in EVERYTHING.  This is by far the dumbest thing I have ever read.  I can’t believe your head didn’t explode when you typed it.

This is what is called a strawman argument.
In other words, atheists argue that we theists are saying, "You, the atheist, cannot disprove God, therefore, a belief in God is rational."

That is NOT what atheists say.  What we are saying, and PAY SOME FLIPPING ATTENTION THIS HONKING TIME, is that you have no evidence of a god, nor of a particular god.  Without evidence, there is NO FLIPPING RATIONAL REASON to believe.  You may believe based on faith.  FAITH IS DELUSION.  You cannot have evidence AND faith.  These are mutually exclusive.

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.

28 comments:

  1. Seriously, all I had to do was read the first line, this Andrew guy needs to get some manners. He loves talking down to people just to seem smarter. He obviously can't hold a grown up debate without calling personal attacks.

    Seriously, Andrew is the one who needs to learn how to read, he goes again and again with Zeus and the spaghetti monster claiming there is as much evidence for those as to the God of the bible. When someone just is plain being stupid and illogical, there is no point in further debate. He is a troll on his own blog, he's not interested in anything said, only in making Tim look bad by using irrational logical and by definition imaginary characters. He as not claimed there isn't a God, but instead that there are many, he just can't choose which one.

    Atheism is the default position says the evolutionist, it takes indoctrination, this is begging the question, how the heck does he know it is the default position? Also how does that fir into evolution? So the first people believed in God from indoctrination from what? Nature?

    The burden of proof is yours, you keep claiming there is no God, that you KNOW for a fact there is no God, to hold that position, you must have proof that he doesn't exist.

    You cannot have evidence and faith... completely stupid and untrue, you claim to have evidence for evolution and you have faith in abiogenesis, so whats your point. Man up and tackle your own suppositions. You can write all the crap as "mutually exclusive" you want, but just becuase you write it, it doesn't make it so. You keep lying and trying to sound very smart, but all you do is misrepresent definitions.

    Dragon in your pants... Definitely more plausible than gray matter in your brain.

    ReplyDelete
  2. What does "It must stand on its own merit." mean? We don't have things that stand on their own merit. They work in our experience so we learn to trust and believe them...
    "Science does not explain the mathematical intelligibility of the physical world, for it is part of science's founding faith that this is so.” ~ John Polkinghorn, Professor of Quantum Physics at Cambridge

    ReplyDelete
  3. Andrew claims something is refuted just because he claims it to be.

    So according to Andrew, if slavery becomes the norm in the future, it will completely moral. I see what in, is moral. Society and people dictate morality. Why does he have a problem with morality from an ancient book, it seems its morality is pretty darn good and pretty much followed around the world, (most of it anyway)

    Andrew is looking a bit desperate these days.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Lets also not forget the 50,000,000 (USA Alone) of unborn babies killed by Atheistic morality. Yes, the majority says abortion is OK, therefore it is moral. Have you ever seen abortions? This is the most inhumane thing ever done and yet most people think it is OK. You have absolutely no objective morality, it is simply what is acceptable during a specific time period.

    ReplyDelete
  5. 300 million potential children of mine die every night I sleep alone.

    ReplyDelete
  6. There goes another idiotic comment, yes in your atheistic moral, the death of sperm is the same as the death of a baby. Seriously, do you think before you type?

    ReplyDelete
  7. Do you not think that every sperm is sacred?
    How can you not think that every sperm is great?
    Have you not seen that every time a sperm is wasted God gets quite irate.

    ReplyDelete
  8. "Atheism is the default position. No one is born believing in a god. We are all born atheists."

    No one is born believing there is no god. Atheism is no more default than theism.

    "It takes instruction, or indoctrination, to believe in a god."

    In order to do or believe anything we must learn (take instruction).

    If Atheism is default where did all these religions come from? One explanation I hear: "People did not have knowledge or science to explain how many things in our universe worked, so they made up a god to explain it." In other words: if they did not have the science they defaulted to a god.

    I am only saying the Atheism is not the default. I am not saying the burden is on you to prove God is not real. But you can not place the burden on the Theist to prove that God is real only using the tools that you will allow. Certainly this gets tricky but as I said in my last comment science is already built on faith, the two sides do not start so far apart as you make them out to be.

    ReplyDelete
  9. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  10. “Slavery was once the norm; now we are appalled at the notion.”

    Are you saying that as people we are now morally coded to know that slavery is wrong when we were not before? How can this be? You likely claim that morality is an evolved thing, and it is scientifically impossible that we have evolved that much in a couple hundred years.

    Maybe your use of “appalled” means: we really just don’t like slavery any more. Much like we might say “I was appalled at the fellow eating a bucket of cottage cheese.” But this hardly makes it right or wrong, only liked or disliked. And this is not something that can be imposed on someone else, but we would like to impose.

    Maybe we are “appalled” because we have been taught and indoctrinated by our society? I think we are both appalled with that idea, because we can just as easily indoctrinate ourselves into thinking it is right to kill babies.

    Perhaps we have been morally coded all along to abhor the idea of slavery but went along with it because of our own selfish gain, etc. We easily act now like we would never get involved with slavery simply because it is so far removed from us and we have never had to deal with it?

    Hopefully we are appalled by the fact that “The number of slaves today is higher than at any point in history,[4] remaining as high as 12 million[5] to 27 million” (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery).

    ReplyDelete
  11. Hey, Hey, Metasol! Nice to meet you. My, you've been busy. Let's just start at the beginning.

    When I say something must stand on it's own merit, I mean that an argument must be logical, and conform to the rules of logic, or it is illogical. I mean that the arguments Tim has produced, most commonly the argument from design, are flawed in nature because they do not conform to these rules. For example, the argument from design implies that complexity necessitates design. If this is true, than the designer should be MORE complex than the designed. Therefore, the designer would also necessitate a designer, and this would continue indefinitely. How do you escape the increasing complexity of the designer and the increasing demand for its design?

    Now, perhaps "hard" atheism is not the default, but weak atheism certainly is. I get a lot of slack from my fellow atheists when I don't point out the difference. "Hard" atheism holds the belief that god is imaginary. "Weak" atheism lacks the belief god is real. Now I think it's semantics, but the atheist community is big on these distinctions, so I'll make them here. But I take your point that "hard" atheism may not be default. However, that DOES put weak atheism as the default. I think it is quite fair to limit the acceptable evidence of the all-powerful, all-present, all-knowing creator of the universe to the kind of evidence I use to show a turd exists. Science is as built on faith as Star Trek is on Cheezits. (That is to say, not at all. I don't recall any Cheezits on any Star Trek. Cheezits and Star Trek are mutually exclusive.)

    ReplyDelete
  12. Metasol, I'm a little confused at your argument on slavery. Are you suggesting that we should NOT be appalled by slavery? Do you mean that YOU are not appalled by slavery?

    I'm suggesting that in the past, we were indoctrinated to think that slavery was okay. We have to overcome that indoctrination, thatway of thinking, to find a better way to relate to our fellow person. We needed to stop accepting what we were indoctrinated to believe, and come up with a new way of understanding that people don't get to own people like toasters.

    I do, however, find it refreshing to hear from a believer that they do not think that what they like or dislike should be forced on others. Thank you for fighting with me to keep creation nonsense out of the science classroom, for keeping stem cell research going strong, for standing up for abortion rights, for speaking up for gay marriage, for signing the petitions to strip churches of tax-exempt status for engaging in political campaigns. Thank you for being the real voice that needs to be heard more often. The voice of the believer who understands that when religion exits the church and enters the public arena, it harms us all.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Yeah Andrew, stand up for abortion rights, there's your morality, stand up for murder, after all who cares.

    Atheism is default, for someone wanting rational statements you sure are irrational and delusional.
    Feral children (those who have not grown with a human) display no signs at all of anything, they behave like animals, they are neither Atheist or Theist. They both require indoctrination, but at least in the Theist world we have a reason for how humans got their humanity, Adam and Eve created as adults under God. How do you explain feral moving into humanism.

    Andrew is a little confused on the slavery argument. Really, this guy just wants to play word games.

    Hey, lets keep in the classrooms though, that humans have vestigial organs, lets keep in the classroom that all matter in the universe came from nothing at the big bang and caused by nothing, lets teach the oort cloud, lets teach that most of the matter in the universe cant be detected or measured, but we know is there. Lets teach that a life came from a primordial soup.

    This Andrew guy doesn't even believe what he preaches, hes indoctrinated in his Atheism and will follow it through no matter what. And he wants to talk about theists.

    Laughable.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Abortion Rights make no sense, because it is the right of the unborn child that is being questioned and he obviously had no voice.

    That's like giving a murderer rights to murder someone. It doesn't make sense anyway you look at it, and it shows the many issues that can arise without an objective moral standard.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Those dependent on another have no right.

    ReplyDelete
  16. So the child dependent on a mother have no right to live, so by this definition a mother should be able to murder her child even after death as long as he is a dependent right? This is great thinking people!!

    ReplyDelete
  17. So the children dependent on their mother have no right to live, so by this definition a mother should be able to murder her child even after birth as long as they are dependent on her right? This is great thinking people!! **

    ReplyDelete
  18. Hows the old line go?
    "Kill'em all and let God sort'em out."

    ReplyDelete
  19. Andrew,
    Looks likes someone has interrupted our conversation!
    Yes the argument from design would continue indefinitely if we stayed within this working system (the universe), but once the designing moves outside of that system, certainly it is only logical that the rules will likely change. I don't care how they might change, I am just saying the in the argument from design, the Designer is, by definition, not held to the same rules. Therefore the argument from design is not illogical.

    ReplyDelete
  20. You say that “in the past, we were indoctrinated to think that slavery was okay”. Are you saying we really knew that it was wrong back then but there were outside pressures that caused individuals to ignore what they knew? Or perhaps even convince themselves that it was okay? If so, then what we know to be right and wrong has not changed, only how we act on what we know to be right and wrong. Also if it is indoctrination that led us astray how can we be sure it is not happening to us right now in some other way?
    For example: We as individuals produce more pollution than at any other time in history. Probably in 300 years people will be appalled at this too.
    It does not seem to stand to reason that because something can change it will be better. It is only something that can change for better or for worse. And perhaps it is not even the morals that are changing but just the societies that are changing?

    ReplyDelete
  21. If science is not built on faith or belief what is it built on? And then what is that built on? At some point you decide “This is my starting point” and you hold to that starting point because you believe it to be the best starting point, because that starting point fits in best with your experiences and thinking. If we give some very basic logical statement like “if a< b then b>a”. We have no proof for this, it simply works well with our experiences and thinking. One might say “I have tried it many times and it was always true” and then believe that means it will continue to hold true whenever it is used again, but these is no proof that it will work next time.

    ReplyDelete
  22. We could take the static vs dynamic morality another direction... Imagine Doug comes back from 1000 years in the future where they have discovered time travel. Doug stays here and lives out a normal life. He of course brings back with him his own morality and ethics. If I follow your morality and ethics section, you would say his morality and ethics are a 1000 years improved on yours. Therefore throughout yours and Doug's life, if he takes a static morality and ethic approach he will still have his morality and ethics better than yours by 9 hundred some years.
    Of course in 1000 years if Doug's descendants do not improve on their morality, your descendants who do improve on their morality will be better. But lets say Doug comes from end of time, outside of time even. Then not only will his static morality be better now but it always will be better.
    My real point here is that you can not claim that dynamic morality is better than static morality in general. Your issue may be with someone delivering ethics/morality to us from the end of time, or your issue may be with a specific static morality, but not with dynamic vs static morality.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Metasol, Please ignore with me the anonymous trolls. There is more than one, and there is no reason to respond to any of them. Just pretend they are not here. It's what I do.

    Design from OUTSIDE our universe? The rules of logic and complexity change? Indeed. This really doesn't answer the question, though, does it? In fact, this further illustrates my point that IF I conceded a designer, there is no way to distinguish potential designers from one another. The christian god is as likely a candidate as the flying spaghetti monster, the invisible pink unicorn, the giant space turtle, the dragon in my pants, etc. If we change the rules to allow some supernatural answer, then ANY supernatural answer will do.

    This renders all arguments that find a supernatural explanation illogical.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Science is based on evidence. I'm confused by your statement that we could not have proof that if aa. Why are the simple terms of logic not applicable? Why do we have to re-define what is and is not real? Do we really need to re-invent the wheel here?

    Explain why it would not be reasonable for me to expect the pen I drop to fall to the floor. Explain why the room is dark until I flip the switch. Explain why when I flip the switch, and the light does NOT turn on, I don't immediately think demons have invaded my home.

    ReplyDelete
  25. Metasol, you're confusing me still with the terms, "static" and "dynamic" morality. What do these mean, exactly?

    I assert that if by "static" you mean "unchanging", that there is no such thing as "static morality". Further, I assert the term "dynamic morality" is redundant. All morality is subject to change. This is like saying "hot fire", or "wet water".

    Metasol said:
    Are you saying we really knew that [slavery] was wrong back then but there were outside pressures that caused individuals to ignore what they knew?

    No. Not at all. That's not how indoctrination works. That's the exact OPPOSITE of how indoctrination works. What I am saying is that people thought slavery was good. The authors of the bible thought slavery was okey dokey. Jesus himself gave slavery a thumbs-up. If, therefore, we no longer think that slavery is hunky dory, then that means our morality does change. I'd say it's a change for the better, wouldn't you?

    I will take your point that all changes need not be for the better. But IF we all agree that our morality DOES change, and IF we all agree that the bible is NOT our source for morals, and IF we all acknowledge OUR INDIVIDUAL responsibility to make changes that improve our morality, and IF we all accept our INDIVIDUAL responsibility for the RIGHT and WRONG choices we make, I say we have the formula to make time-travelers proud. The first step is to realize that god isn't here; we are.

    ReplyDelete
  26. This was your argument about design.
    "If complexity only comes about from design, then it stands to reason that the designer would have to be MORE complex than the designed. Who designed your designer? No one? So your god is LESS complex than my butthole? No? How does your god escape the logic of the argument that is supposed to support his existence?"
    My point was that this argument does not stand as the rules will change once you go outside our universe. Ask Stephen Hawking to explain some m-theory, you will quickly see that in the existence before this universe there are a different set of rules that govern.
    If you do concede a designer and say that "there is no way to distinguish potential designers from one another" because the rules have changed. Would this not apply to Mr. Hawking's theories too?
    But when we look at existence before our universe we take the evidence we have here to examine how the pre universe existence might interact with our universe. Thus with an argument by design we are requiring the designer to be both “creative” and “powerful”. If all of your “likely candidates” have these qualities then yes they are still candidates, but if they lack either of these qualities we can remove them from the list. We should be able to continue this process (very much like Mr Hawking is doing) until we find a candidate that works.

    ReplyDelete
  27. The simple terms of logic are applicable. Why are they applicable? We are not reinventing the wheel. I am saying there is some reason for why we think the simple terms of logic are applicable. What are those reasons. It is reasonable for you to expect a pen you drop to fall to the floor. Why is it reasonable? These basic elements of reality don't just exist, you are not born knowing these things, what makes you “know” them to be true? You learn them through some sort of experience/evidence.
    For example: If you drop a pen.. it falls to the floor. If you do this once, do you “know” it will always happen? No. Twice, three times, 10 times, a 1000? Is there a magic number in there? No. But with each success of the experiment(evidence) our confidence increases. Confidence is “full trust; belief in the powers, trustworthiness, or reliability of a person or thing” http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/confidence. The evidence/experience only builds the trust or belief until we are confident enough to rely on it every time.
    Again I am saying science is built on belief and the evidence that builds our belief.

    ReplyDelete
  28. I will leave the morality issue for now since Tim has addressed it. But yes by static I do mean a morality that does not change. A system that is true for all people at all times. By dynamic I mean one that will change. And depending on what comes up from Tim's post I may have to go back and find out exactly what indoctrination really means.

    ReplyDelete