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.  

I'm Calling Out The Atheists

I am calling you out atheists.  I believe that atheism is a dishonest position.  An atheist says, "There is no God."  The only argument that the atheist has for his position is that we cannot scientifically prove that there is a God, therefore, there must not be a God.  Yet, that is actually poor logic.  Atheism cannot offer any positive proof for its position.  Atheism cannot disprove the existence of God, thus, it cannot legitimately say that God does not exist.  A more honest position, one that I would understand, is the agnostic who can honestly say, "I do not know if there is a God or not."

Indeed, as a Christian I may not be able to prove via the scientific method that God exists.  I believe that there are "proofs" of God's existence, it is just that they are not proofs in the scientific sense.  Instead they are proofs in that it is more rational to believe that God exists that to believe there is no God.  

Theism explains every issue -- things that atheists cannot explain such as the creation of the world, or a basis for morality.  In fact, a belief in God gives meaning to life.  What do you atheists live for since, according to evolution, there is no purpose to your life?

Andrew the Atheist warns against mocking the SMAD

Yes, it's true.  I'm mocking belief with this SMAD thing.  But I'm doing so to make a point.  I think it is valid and a very true analogy.  In the last post I made, I turned all the apologetics around to favor the argument for the existence of the Super Mega Awesome Dragon instead of your god.  The point is that these arguments can easily be used to argue for the existence of OTHER gods BESIDES the christian god, and therefore fail to prove the existence of any specific god. 

Further, we've covered this before.  When you, Tim, first called upon the Design Argument, I objected because I asserted you do not believe in your god because of this argument.  I further asserted that NO ONE believes because of these arguments.  You'll remember:  you conceded this point.  You admit these are NOT convincing arguments, and yet you are still trying to use them.  Then you have the nerve to say that I am being silly for continuing with the argument from SMAD.  But you have yet to disprove SMAD.

But here's an interesting phenomena:  when I asserted there is a dragon in my pants, you didn't believe me.  You asked for evidence!  Congratulations!!  You have agreed that disbelief is indeed the default position.  Of course it is.  You have no positive evidence that the dragon is real, and therefore, you feel there is no rational reason for believing the dragon exists.  You are an atheist in regards to my dragon. 

Now, I'm going to tell you that I have indeed felt the dragon's presence in my life.  I have already asserted that I can hear the dragon roar.  I can smell the dragon's stinky breath.  You can too.  These events are common and easily reproduced.  I can make the dragon roar just by praying to it.  It's roar is recordable, and can be studied scientifically.  There is tangible, recordable, measurable, physical evidence of this dragon.  This is WAY more than what we have for a god, and yet you STILL don't believe I have a dragon in my pants, do you?

Why not?   Don't you trust me?  You say faith is really trust.  So trust me.  Trust that I believe there is a dragon in my pants.  Trust that it is really there.  Trust that there is a SMAD, that Godzilla is green and invisible, that the Dragonzord waits to punish non-believers, that the Loch Ness Monster was the last true prophet of SMAD.  Have faith.  You can even hope if you like.  Hope to escape the fires of the Dragonzord.  Hope Nessie will bear the weight of your dragon sins.  Hope for the SMAD to be real.  Does this sound delusional yet?

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, to show how belief in irrational things is harmful to society:

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?

By the way, I do not have the ability to remove comments from this blog, nor would I do so if I had the power.  I'd like to thank the Human Ape for joining us.  In case you all haven't noticed, I'm ignoring all anonymous comments.  If I had control over the comments, I'd require a login for comments to post, but I don't. 
Oh, and that reminds me.  If you get offended by profanity, then you can just fuck off.  Grow a fucking pair and get the fuck over it.  Fuck.  Fuckity.  Fuckwhat.  Fucknuggets.  FucktuesdayFuckhammer.

The Dragon Example Makes You Look Silly...But If You Insist On Using It, Please Provide Some Evidence

Forgive me, Andrew.  Let’s back up a little bit.  I would love for you to try and argue that belief is a detriment to society.  I would also love to see you try and argue against the definition of faith both Biblical and secular sources utilize.  So, please in your next posts, attempt either of those arguments.

With regard to your silly “dragon in my pants” argument, I have addressed it by asking you for evidence.  You have yet to provide any.  I myself think it wise for you to stop using this argument. I know that you are attempting to mock Christianity, but I fear that it only makes you look foolish.  Our readers seem to agree.

So again, forgive me for going too fast. I would love for us to back up and address those issues. And if you insist on using the silly dragon example, please provide some evidence, any evidence.  I mean why do you believe there is a dragon in your pants?  Have you seen it? Have you felt it? Is there any evidence of him in the world?  Is there anything that it has created?  Does anyone else believe it exists?