A reasonable blog on atheism, religion, science and skepticism
Follow Patheos Atheist:
I could say the same thing to Atheist.
You could, but you’d just come off as a contrary child who doesn’t understand the meaning of the words you’re using.
Please present the evidence that your religious views are the correct and true ones. We’re listening.
Well, it is one of those cute little lines that could cut any number of ways. But there is a way of narrowing down the possibilities. As UrsaMinor suggests, let’s compare evidence.
Want to take timed IQ and general knowledge tests and post screen captures of the results? My money’s on me, the well educated skeptic, versus you, the credulous believer in knowledge by tradition.
Yes you could, many Atheists are ignorant of the bible, it doesn’t make the existence of God factual.
For those who love logic, here’s an infallible logical argument:
The Universe can only be one of three scenarios:
1. There is no god
2. There is one God
3. There is more than one “god”.
Logically speaking, it can be no less than one of these scenarios and no more than one, but let’s dive more into it:
In this physical world, the principles of mathematics govern our way of life. Every thing, down to the smallest particle, has some sort of mathematical dimension to it. Because it has a mathematical principle to it, it is bound by the laws of physics. These “laws” always existed; and they are the same now as they were before we even discovered them, and they will always remain the same as they were from the moment the physical came into existence.
So, you ask, “why talk about the physical law”? Well, I question, if there is something, such as the laws of physics that help govern the Universe, what if there are laws of the same nature in the metaphysical Universe?
…laws that have always been. Laws that govern the metaphysical. The question is…who (or what) determines these laws?
Now, going back to my “Universe Scenario”, the idea of “god” is, arguably, one who “creates and governs” moral law. With this in mind:
1. If there is no god, that means there is no “moral” law. This would also mean that any atheist who claims “morality” is going against their own logic (Relativism is therefore true by default).
2. If there is one god, that means there is one “moral” law…and, again I add, just because we haven’t “discovered” “moral law” yet, doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist.
3. If there are multiple gods, that means there are multiple moral laws. Following one moral law is no “better” than following another moral law (unless, of course, the gods have a hierarchy themselves).
Now, going back again to my “Universe Scenario”: if there is no god, therefore, no morality, then what is the purpose of point of life if we are just continually going to be tormented by the slavery of life itself? But death cannot help us escape, but rather, only permanently dull us of the pain of being alive.
If there are multiple gods, arguments become pointless in the matter of “just finding a reason to justify my belief that this is moral”. But, also, that might have a philosophical consequence to it, because what if two gods decided that to completely opposite things are moral? One says that “killing of an undisciplined offspring is immoral”, but the other “killing of an undisciplined offspring is moral”…who is more “right” (or are both of them right?). This would simply throw the Universe into chaos, as the laws and foundation of all metaphysics constantly change with the attitudes and emotions of the gods (just look at Greek Mythology for a good example of that).
This leads us with one last scenario…if there is one god that creates and governs all moral law is the very reason why we have one judge at every legal court case. It is philosophically the best answer, because it is the only one that doesn’t not contradict with itself.
…the question (and debate) between any “atheist” and “Christian” (or any religion for that matter) should be…are we able to attain and know “Universal Truth”? If the answer is no, then any logical argument is pointless, because faith would have to take over (yes, faith…because, believe it or not, it takes “faith” to be an atheist in the eyes of philosophy). If the answer is yes…why, with all our intelligence, haven’t we found it yet? Or, maybe…some people have found it and are not telling us…or worse yet…they’re telling us…we’re just not listening…
I use the term “moral law” in the sense that we have “the law of physics”. That was also the reason why I put it in quotes, because I knew someone was going to ask about my definition of “moral law” to try and distract from the basis of my argument.
I think, also, what I failed to address is with the scenario that there are “multiple gods”, I probably should’ve added the fact that people believe there are “multiple gods”, and we are those “gods”. The philosophical argument still remains the same in that context, however.
I do apologize that I am not an English major or even a Philosophy Major…but I hope that you’ll still treat me as an equal, despite the fact I have no evidence to give you motivation to treat me as an equal.
I will be completely honest; I know people will label me as just another “stupid religious guy”, but there is one thing that I do need to get across…I am sincerely searching for Truth. This is my life goal. This is why I love philosophy (but I tend to cringe when people use flawed philosophy and claim it as “infallible” philosophy). I will listen to anyone who takes the time to talk to me about their search for Truth, because I believe everyone has some sort of correct perspective of Truth (not to be confused with the truth of perspectives).
There either is Truth, or there isn’t Truth. If there is Truth, I’m going to find as much as I can so I, myself, can make my legacy go beyond my life (just like those famous celebrities that we so greatly celebrate years after they’re dead). If there is no Truth, then I will gladly proclaim that I have wasted my life for such a noble cause (just like how people devote their whole lives trying to find the cure to cancer or AIDS).
Either people are with me in this search, or not. The people who are searching Truth as genuinely as I am will do nothing but help me. Those who are not searching Truth as genuinely as I am will do nothing but hurt me.
…and, nonetheless, by all definition, it still takes faith to be an atheist. In fact, it takes faith that you’re going to wake up alive the next morning. It takes faith that your car will start up in the morning. It takes faith to live life. Without any sort of faith on life itself, we would never live, for the future can never be proven. By this token, having faith that there will be a future is the same type of faith in believing in no god. There is no physical proof either way, therefore, making a decision about the existence of god (whether for or against) is an act of faith.
People have faith in something…it’s just a matter of them finding a reason to having that faith in a certain thing, so they can drop the “faith” word and replace it with “reason”. It’s their way of sounding more “dignified” than those “radical religious people”. Faith and reason are interchangeable my friend…we need faith to believe in reason, so we find reason to believe our faith.
Also, if “moral law” is, in fact, unchangeable (like physics), by disagreeing with it, are we disagreeing because we’re “open minded” or disagreeing with it because we simply just don’t like it and trying to find a reason so that we can’t be proven wrong?
There are two ways darkness can exist:
1. There is something that is blocking the light source from us.
2. The light source is too far away from us.
I will say that Truth is that light source…and in order to have Truth, we either need to get rid of whatever is blocking us from Truth, or we need to get closer.
…that sounds very much like what religion has been trying to tell us all these years, but we have either created things that have blocked us from Truth, or we’ve ran in the opposite direction and getting further from the Truth.
…those in the light can see clearly. Those in darkness can’t barely even see what’s in front of them.
…I’m not saying seek religion, then find Truth…I’m saying seek Truth, then find the group of people who have it as well. There is a religion that has Truth. If not, then I will be sad to say that all attempts to find Truth are for a lost but noble cause, because if we can’t find it by now, will we ever?
I admit, not everyone who is religious is seeking Truth. Unfortunately, these are the people that have stained religion in the eyes of the world. However, I will stand with this belief that religion is not the corruption of man, but rather, man is the corruption of religion. It is out of the insincerity of their hearts that have tainted the name of religion. Some even do it deliberately from the inside.
Understanding Truth and living Truth are two different things. What good is a prophet if he is alone in his own world? People struggle with this. It is the fear of being persecuted, or, worse yet, that their lack of confidence in Truth will be exposed.
This is why, once again, I will say it takes great faith to be an atheist, because it’s also a faith in science. What if science is fooling you? What if the scientist purposely skewed the evidence? Lawyers do this all the time, even when life and death is on the line. Why would scientist be exempt from this temptation?
It is too easy to be a 100% skeptic. Even amateur philosophers can be skeptical about everything, and as philosophers, we’re even TOLD to be skeptics…but what good does being a 100% skeptic do as a final theory? That nothing is real, even the philosophy that we study? That is no more than starting the car but leaving the transmission in park. We must not be afraid, for fear paralyzes even the most intelligent of minds…and that is the fear of being wrong.
I have no fear about finding Truth, because I have nothing to lose. If it turns out that there is no god, then I’ll end up in a 6-foot hole, just like everyone else…but again, at least I died for a noble cause. But…if there is Truth…
(This was originally written on March 10, 2012 by… J. A. Greene)
This wall of text is absurd, sorry. You make so many assumptions and leaps of logic it’s as if you’re doing it on purpose. Are you a Poe?
“Well, I question, if there is something, such as the laws of physics that help govern the Universe, what if there are laws of the same nature in the metaphysical Universe?…laws that have always been. Laws that govern the metaphysical. The question is…who (or what) determines these laws?”
First you have to prove there is a metaphysical universe.
“Now, going back to my “Universe Scenario”, the idea of “god” is, arguably, one who “creates and governs” moral law. With this in mind: 1. If there is no god, that means there is no “moral” law.”
Why the heck would anybody agree to your particular definition of god other than to bend over backwards to suit your preconception that your particular god exists? And even if we did define god specifically as one who creates and governs moral law, that doesn’t mean there can’t be a moral law aside from that being’s existence.
“This would also mean that any atheist who claims “morality” is going against their own logic ”
No it doesn’t, and this little needle in your haystack of nonsense demonstrates you’re obviously looking for a reaction. Just because an atheist doesn’t subscribe to moral absolutes doesn’t mean they cannot claim any kind of morality. That’s asinine. If I don’t take “thou shalt not kill” to be an absolute rule, it doesn’t mean I’m immoral because I wouldn’t shoot an innocent person but might shoot someone to prevent them murdering a dozen more. Moral relativism is still a form of morality.
Then there’s a whole screed of nonsense I can’t be bothered with, culminating in:
“I have no fear about finding Truth, because I have nothing to lose. If it turns out that there is no god, then I’ll end up in a 6-foot hole, just like everyone else…but again, at least I died for a noble cause. But…if there is Truth…”
No, you won’t have died for a noble cause, you’ll have died because you’re human and that’s what humans do. Besides, there is nothing noble about chancing on a correct belief about an omnipotent super being, and nothing noble about that being.
“(This was originally written on March 10, 2012 by… J. A. Greene)”
Aside from all the bits you cribbed from other philosophers, like Aquinas and Pascal…
Thank you for the compliment, for I never knew there were comparisons to what I wrote to the great writings of Aquinas and Pascal. Any other great philosophers that I “steal” from? (It seems like you are more astute to the study of Philosophy, and here I am, a simple laymen, “rediscovering the wheel” per-say…so, maybe, to cause more hours of my life on “re-discovering the wheel”, maybe you can teach me what you know? I’m sure there is just as much due credit from you as there are from other philosophers…for isn’t all philosophy created equal, that’s why we have both sides of the argument?)
You’re waffling. Nothing you just said has any actual meaning beyond “I’m trying to make myself look smart and worm my way out of being called out for my obvious hackneyed arguments”. You also dodged the counterpoints to your arguments. Try actually engaging in the subject at hand for a change. You can’t call logic based on an arbitrary assumption that there is a metaphysical universe “infallible”.
“I think, therefore, I am”…isn’t that identifying a metaphysical Universe? Animals can’t do this (even if they could, how would we be able to know?). Thought itself is the evidence of a metaphysical Universe (because it’s not physical). Pardon me for “assuming” that everyone knew that.
Without Moral Absolution, a killer can justify doing what is “moral” in his eyes…a rapist can justify doing something “moral” because it makes him feel good…and philosophers can say “I’m right” because they believe themselves to be right, not because they are right. This is my point as far as “it is necessary to believe in Moral Absolutes, or else everyone is subject to their own, sometimes twisted, morality with nothing but themselves to lead them one way or another”.
And so one day, I will die…but my question is…what reward will you have for being right? What punishment will I have for being wrong? In the end, will it matter who was right or wrong in this discussion? Everything will one day become a memory, but once all mankind is gone, all memory is gone, and it was like you and I never existed in the first place. Will it really matter who was right and wrong when we all die?
Does that adequately engage the subject at hand?
If someone is wrong and someone is right, it can affect how they thenceforth live their life. Or do you assume because the effect is essentially meaningless without a god to keep record, the argument itself and the effect don’t matter?
Your ideas on morality are very religious. If there’s no reason not to rape, then people will just rape, and there will be no eternal consequences, that makes it ok, since the rapist did not feel culpable.
YOUR morals are warped if you think they have to derive from the sky. The rest of us try, I think, to take care of each other.
Also, one thing I forgot to mention:
When I say “God”, I’m not talking about the “Bible” God, or the “Koran” God, or any religious God in particular…it is, more or less, referring to the same “God” that Socrates was referring to (in which he got killed for). I’m just trying to pick up where Socrates left off.
Socrates got killed, you couldn’t handle a few people pointing out the flaws in your logic. I’m not sure you’re really following on from him very well.
I don’t mean to be mean, maybe you got a bit in over your head. That’s ok, we all can rush in and make ourselves look a bit stupid. True character comes from saying “yes, ok, I was a bit rash in pretending I knew it all, let’s talk about this properly now”. But if you’re not willing to try, that doesn’t say much for your intellectual courage or rigor.
This never really gets out of the starting gate. You leap from the observable physical universe to an assumed “metaphysical universe” that has never be detected or observed. You would be every bit as justified (or unjustified) in constructing your argument around the assumed Land of Oz.
I have no proof that you exist…yes, sure, I read what you typed, but how do I know it’s “you”? The you that you know of is not the same “you” that I perceive on who wrote this. Furthermore, unless I “meet” you, the only knowledge I have from you is based on what you wrote, which, I assume, is 1% of what you are in entirety in reality…but, until I have “proof”, I am as content as a cucumber to assume that the 1% of what I know is the entirety of your existence in my perception…for there is no “proof” to prove me wrong (as of right now at least).
That is a non-starter, sure you have no proof that Ursa exist but you do have proof of the existence of humans writing comments on the intertubes (presumably you are one), so the conclusion that the comment was written by a human posting under the screen name UrsaMinor has the most explanatory power based on what we know about the way the universe work. In your examples, on the other hand, you suppose a metaphysical universe even though no indication for the existence of such universe has ever been observed and it doesn’t provide any explanatory power to any phenomena that isn’t provided by the natural universe. The issue of where morality comes from have been discussed in minute details in hundreds of books and you may want to read some before making the unfounded assertion that morality can’t exist without your god.
My perception of UrsaMinor and what reality could be are two different things…or, by chance, they could be the same thing. I won’t know until I find out, but as far as “assuming” who UrsaMinor is as a person could be drastically different than my current perception…and when I meet him, I have the right to change my perception based on what I know when that happens…but as far as I know now, I have the right to reserve any “pre-meeting” thought on who the person who goes by the name UrsaMinor is, for there is no proof yet to prove my perception wrong.
…and I disagree that he “has the most explanatory power based on what we know about the way the universe work” (no offense UrsaMinor). This is like similar to saying that “Justin Bieber is the greatest recording artist of all time” (which, I’m not a Justin Beiber fan, for the record, but stating how anyone could say “this person has the greatest _____” and other can have a different, but equal, opinion, but this does not make it “infallible”).
…and I never claimed “god” as my own. I don’t follow a “god” that I lead around.
You also have no proof that Valhalla isn’t real and that you need to die in battle in order to go there. You don’t assume that is true, which implies that your comment is another trick. Special pleading and inevitably other fallacies would be apparent to you if you had any intellectual honesty. You are inconsistent and contradictory if you would take issue with someone using the exact same nonsense in order to support human sacrifice or ritual cannibalism or Last Tuesdayism.
You aren’t responding honestly to the points people make. What are you afraid of? If your beliefs are honest then you should be able to speak about them honestly. Don’t avoid answering, don’t lie, don’t use fallacies. You chose to join a debate and now you are setting a bad example for your fellow believers. Keep it coming.
And you have no proof that God doesn’t exist. I know, I’m going to get accused of being a “god of the gaps” arguer, but here me out:
I can easily deny the existence of Antarctica. I’ve never been there, I’ve never met anyone who has been there, therefore, there’s no proof in my life in particular that there is no Antarctica. Of course, this is seen as absurd. Of course Antarctica exists, because there are people who have proof and I have the ability to talk to them and even discover it myself. However, what if I believe that the Big Bang Theory isn’t true? Can I go back in time and say “oh, yeah, you’re right, the Big Bang Theory is true…I guess we can drop the ‘theory’ part”. The evidence POINTS to it existing, but there is no PROOF, yet almost every Scientist will claim this as “infallible science”.
The point that I have been trying to make (and seen has been purposely avoided, consciously or subconsciously (and I find it amazing how many people are trying to dive into my subconscious and trying to tell me what’s *really* inside my head)) that Atheist have faith in what the believe. The fact that there is no “proof” of God doesn’t automatically mean God doesn’t exist. Did people know that Jupiter had moons before Galileo? Did people believe that the earth revolved around the sun before Copernicus? Did we really know how deep space was before the Hubble Space Telescope? No…but yet, all of this existed before we discovered it as “proof”. Maybe one day we will have “proof” of God, just like we have “proof” of the Big Bang Theory or “proof” of quarks. As I said earlier, even if I’m wrong and you’re right, we suffer the same fate.
What moral law is contingent on the existence of Antarctica – we can go there to prove it to all of ourselves. Basically the rest of your stuff is we can’t prove something if we can’t go back in time, scientists know nothing so anything can be true, so let’s assume what I think is true is true and then base a bunch of horseshit on it! There is no morality based on the Big Bang being true; morality based on god being true instead of the big bang is not actually morality, it’s fear of being punished. Sorry if you can’t live in a world where the bad people aren’t cosmically punished.
More hypocrisy, Liar for Jesus. You don’t need proof in the nonexistence of Odin to not believe in Odin. Atheists don’t have faith in the nonexistence of your god in exactly the same way that you don’t have faith in the nonexistence of Odin. Your hypocrisy is quite useful in deconverting others.
Once again you are not responding to questions honestly. You resort of obvious lies, you move the goalposts, you say foolish things in order to not admit that you are simply full of shit. Keep it coming, Liar for Jesus.
You can’t refute that Ursa exists as a counter-argument that a metaphysical Universe does exist. Ursa may or may not exist, and that has no bearing on the existence of a metaphysical Universe you are spelling with a capital U that you expect us all to assume exists. Prove it exists before we can move forward.
Well, I found that to be a thorough load of horseshit. When the argument you make attempts to smuggle in things as given that aren’t given, you really need to watch your step.
I’ll keep that in mind next time…
…by the way, by what proof is there that what I wrote was horseshit? Isn’t that opinion?
You should try to provide proof of things you just imagine. You sound like someone who reads a lot of a certain kind of horseshit, and no it’s not opinion. Read what you wrote and any time you get to an assumption, like “moral law” or “metaphysical Universe,” you should stop and see if you have proof that any of those things exist. You are looking for “Truth” and you spell it with a capital T. You make assumptions like a “third-choice” agnostic with a religious leaning. You can’t prove god doesn’t exist, so you assume that means god has an even chance of existing as not existing, but you expect to find god or gods exist.
The only “evidence” that god exists is that humans made up stories that he does, and from there, made up stories that explain what his role is – the “moral law” and such; creation; occupying a metaphysical universe; etc. You have sent your brain out to the cleaners and make a lot of assumptions that have no proof, you have let them sneak past you and convince you that it’s possible or even probable.
I would love to agree with all of what you said…but, I’m sorry, I just can’t…I have no proof of that in my life at all. The only thing I know to be true from what you posted is that “perception is definitely reality” in your eyes…and even if you’re wrong, you’re right.
For the record, I’m not a “third-choice” agnostic with a religious leaning. Try again (I’m sure if you keep guessing, one of these days you’ll get it right…but, think about this…how do you know that I’m not purposely trying to sound like a “third-choice” agnostic, just to prove my point? (which, again, for the record, I was…believe it or not. Maybe not quite how you defined it, but I was putting on an act, just to see if anyone would take the bait, which you all did).
If my brain is in the cleaners, at least I decided to get it cleaned.
I think some people are not worth arguing with, since they make a lot of “assumptions” and “opinions” and take it as infallible logic. As you say I am…I have evidence as well to show that you do the same thing. Beat me at my own game…I’m not going to play your game. If you want to be “proven” right…beat me at my own game. Insults, opinions, and assumptions aren’t going to win. They will win with me, because I don’t “need” proof to believe, but you do (doesn’t it suck to argue with someone who’s got relativism as an argument? Which, by the way, relativism is contradictory to atheism, because true relativism states that “the only absolute truth is that there are no absolute truths”, but the #1 argument that Atheist have is “prove that God exists”, but proof doesn’t mean anything if there’s no truth. Make sense?)
And, to response to your other “for those who love logic” post: I never said “for those who want to see ‘the best argument in the world’”, I said for those who love logic, because, no matter what, my posts generated a lot of thought, which was my intention, and people who love philosophy love to think…they will find any excuse to think…and I just wanted to give them that excuse.
To me, it’s not about winning…it’s about how you play the game…because, ultimately, if Atheist care so much about human beings, then they would treat me well, no matter how right or wrong I am.
I think you don’t understand anything! Sorry, but you do have to provide evidence if you want us to proceed off what you believe is true. It makes no difference that you believe it is true, but that you make claims with no proof. We can’t go on this trip you want to take us on until you show us where the metaphysical Universe is.
I feel like you want to be taken seriously, but you are having a lot of trouble and you think that’s our fault. Logic is logic and fantasy is fantasy.
I’m not going to do your homework for you, but your first sentence says, “for those who love logic,” after which you committed several major fallacies. It’s not opinion that you’d gotten far away from a logical argument, and that you had almost certainly read something influential to you beforehand and not concocted this completely from your own thoughts.
You are attempting to change the topic because your crap was exposed as crap. Dishonesty is a great way of showing your fellow believers that their beliefs cannot be defended with honesty.
Keep it coming, Liar for Jesus.
Another dishonest christian going on and on about their “logic”
I got hung up on his assertion that there can’t be a moral law without god. He goes on to admit that we haven’t discovered moral law yet, but some how he’s sure the source must be a god.
“again I add, just because we haven’t “discovered” “moral law” yet, doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist.”
I am human, prone to mistakes….and I thank you for catching one of them:
There’s a keyword I’m missing: “discovered” ALL “moral law”.
And…what proof do you have that I’m dishonest?
Evasive answers, ignoring questions, moving the goal posts. Use of fallacies.
I didn’t see a question…did you ask one?
I thought Jesus didn’t exist…so, how can I be a Liar for someone who doesn’t exist? In order for that to be an insult, then Jesus must be real…for it doesn’t make any sense to lie about something that’s already a lie?
The NFL decided it was good to move the goalposts (they were originally on the goal-line, but they realized it was dangerous to players, so they moved it back approximately 10 yards behind the goal-line, right behind the back of the end zone), so if it’s good enough for the NFL, I guess it’s good enough for me.
I asked you many questions that you are avoiding, Liar for Jesus. Any honest observer will see that and know you for what you are. Your cowardly gamesmanship convinces noone. Your ammateurish wordgames reveal you to be a total fraud.
Keep it coming, Liar for Jesus. Your lies are one of the greatest tools for deconverting honest believers.
“I didn’t see a question…did you ask one?”
Lots of people asked you questions that you didn’t answer. I could forgive you for simply not thinking that might be what was being referred to were it not for this…
“I thought Jesus didn’t exist…so, how can I be a Liar for someone who doesn’t exist? In order for that to be an insult, then Jesus must be real…for it doesn’t make any sense to lie about something that’s already a lie?”
Obvious troll is obvious. You can’t be incapable of understanding metaphor or of getting the idea of person x believing person y is lying to prop up their belief in brand z, even if person x doesn’t believe brand z exists. I believe in Harvey Dent, that doesn’t mean he must exist when somebody points out that I’m lying about who killed some cops to try to preserve his image. He’s a fictional character.
“The NFL decided it was good to move the goalposts (they were originally on the goal-line, but they realized it was dangerous to players, so they moved it back approximately 10 yards behind the goal-line, right behind the back of the end zone), so if it’s good enough for the NFL, I guess it’s good enough for me.”
And then there’s this. Ridiculous. You obviously understand that no, moving the goalposts isn’t ok in philosophical debate, you’re just being smug and passive-aggressive with your pedantry.
You really need to get out more, out to atheist sites, to read how this crap you threw at us has been blasted all to hell a hundred times over.
You would think that in the six months he posted this credulous crap he could have learned something by then. Its as if he’s proud of remaining so stupid.
It’s almost as if he posts what he thinks is an airtight argument over any atheist blog he comes across and never reads the replies.
It’s not a unique tactic to make an essay as if you are some scholar and post it on several atheist blogs with no intention of following up. I was wrong! OMG, you are back. Please stay so we can show you the errors in your essay and you can deny them predictably. Please!
If you want me here to stay, then I’ll stay.
I don’t really care if you stay or not. My posts were getting eaten by the filter for no reason so I double-posted to see if it came up or not.
I was to show that I didn’t write that solely on this website, but wrote that in a prior date (I figured since most Atheist are all about proof, I thought I would prove my case with that before someone questioned it, but apparently I failed…oh well, I’ll learn).
And, contrary to popular belief, I never posted that anywhere else before today. I WROTE it in March…but never posted it until today. I thought I’d just point out that “assumption” since I have been accused of making “assumptions” as well.
That wasn’t an assumption, it was speculation, and it was marked as such. That is very different from saying “there is a metaphysical universe and moral law, we just haven’t discovered it yet”. *That* is an assumption. If you can’t tell the difference, there’s really no point talking to you.
I’ve got to start sometime…hence why I’m here.
Did you come here to get humbled and actually find which of your 3 choices is truest, or did you come here to show us why you think you have some insight no one ever saw before?
All of the above.
Sorry but only option A is available.
After seeing how easily your nonsense was dealt with you are left with a simple choice.
Do you admit it was a bunch of crap, or do you lie about it and keep spewing something you know is false?
If you have integrity you will admit it was crap and look for another way of defending your nonsensical beliefs. If you have no integrity then you will repeat something that you know is false and that would make you just another Liar for Jesus.
Whether you respond or not, those believers who come here will see that you behave as if you are a liar with no integrity. You play a very important role in destroying belief in the supernatural. Keep up the good work.
Hmm. I find it really interesting that the #1 accusation that I have against me is that I “assume” too much. However:
“Do you admit it was a bunch of crap, or do you lie about it and keep spewing something you know is false?”
That is an assumption. I believe it to be Truth. To claim that I do not believe it is an assumption, for there is no evidence to prove to you what I truly believe to be True other than my word…but if you don’t trust me at my word, then you’re left to make your own assumptions based on perception of reality…aka, assumption.
“If you have integrity you will admit it was crap and look for another way of defending your nonsensical beliefs. If you have no integrity then you will repeat something that you know is false and that would make you just another Liar for Jesus.”
That is another assumption. The use of the word “integrity” in your paragraph does not fit the rest of the sentence. I suggest using a different word, but I believe integrity is not the right word to use there. Maybe the phrase “if you think like me” would fit better.
“those believers who come here will see that you behave as if you are a liar with no integrity. You play a very important role in destroying belief in the supernatural.”
That is another assumption. This is to assume that “those believers” (which is referring to who exactly?) is going to come to the same conclusion as you have, but seeing that the statement is appealing to personal conclusion, this also cannot be 100% known…only predicted…and predictions are subject to be wrong.
But, nonetheless, I thank you for finding holes in my logic. I’m sure I will only grow stronger from the feedback that I have received. Much oblige.
More nonsense. Your c0mment, which you claim is an infallible logical argument, was exposed as neither logical nor infallible. Rather than admit it you respond with attempts to change the topic and respond without actually responding. People are well aware of what that kind of behavior implies. Honest people don’t do that. Honest people don’t need your word games and shifty behavior. You even pretend not to know what I mean by “those believers who come here.” The only thing I assume about those believers who will read your comment is that they are smart enough to recognize your deceptive and dishonest behavior when they see it.
You have now admitted that your infallible logical argument is not infallible. After being quickly exposed as just another Liar for Jesus you wind up admitting you were wrong from the start! Thanks for that. It helps to show those believers who come here that there is no logical defense for belief in the supernatural. Keep it coming, Liar for Jesus.
Sarcasm? I apologize if I’m not good at it as you are, but my “admittance” was a mere of “appealing to emotion” (as I knew it would draw a lot of attention and that it would be assumed that I’m admitting to being wrong, which, therefore, you can dive deeper into the assumption that I am wrong and that you are right).
Since I’m just making all kinds of fallacies left and right, I figure “what’s one more?” (oh, and if you’re having trouble trying to figure out what I mean to be sarcastic and what I mean to be true, then, congratulations, you’re proving yourself my point).
What I just simply find fantastic is that I come in…propose a “theory”… and I get shredded like I’m some sort of threat. Without any knowledge of me or my background or intention, you “assume” that I am here to say “you’re wrong, I’m right”. So, instead of asking me what my true intentions are, you assume, and shoot your venom at me. This is the reason why Christians outnumber Atheists: because Atheists don’t give a shit about what other people think (unless they think like them), and when someone genuinely tries to have a meaningful argument with them, and learn from them, they shoot them down as if it were god itself descending from the clouds.
Truth means nothing if love is absent. None on this page has shown me love…and that is why Atheism fails.
You can either look yourself in the mirror and say “ha ha, I took care of that piece of shit” or you will look in the mirror and say “I am ashamed to what I have done to a fellow human being like me”.
…and although I might be a Liar for Jesus, you’re a Liar of the World…which, I think it’s worse…because a smart man (or women), like you…people are depending on you. Don’t let them down…there’s more to life than taking care of “pieces of shit” in the realms of philosophy. Life is more than philosophy…its about love. Those who don’t show love aren’t deserving to have the gift called “philosophy”, because all they will do is abuse that gift…and, to me, that’s a great shame…
…but what do I know? I’m only “assuming”. I guess ignorance is bliss in this case…because I thought Atheist were determined to make the world a better place…I guess I was wrong.
You got shredded because you used amateurish lies and some of the most obvious Liar for Jesus bullshit. Once again you avoid honest questions and resort to lies.
I feel no shame in exposing your lies. You feel shame for using them and just want to shift the blame. If you could find an example of a lie from me you would have cited it, which makes you just another Liar for Jesus. Not an assumption, merely an obvious conclusion. You get judged by your actions and time and time again you chose deception over truth. You claim you want the truth, but you are just a Liar for Jesus.
Don’t bother with your pity party bullshit. Your behavior is doing more to deconvert people than anything I have to say. Each time you respond with those pissy little comments you help to make the world a better place. See what I did there?
Your shame is almost palpable, Liar for Jesus.
You’re distorting what happened through your self-righteous lens. You didn’t come in and propose a theory. You came in and asserted that you had an airtight, irrefutable logical argument that was nothing of the sort, then you dodged and hid from every criticism of that argument while firing off mumbo-jumbo and pseudophilosophical goo to try to sound like you were really smart and we fell into some sort of trap.
You are certainly capable of believing something without proof, nobody is disputing that you believe something – what we need is for you to prove that it’s true before you can assume the rest of us can use it as an assumption of something that is actually true.
You don’t know shit about logic, can I say that frankly to you?
“This leads us with one last scenario…if there is one god that creates and governs all moral law is the very reason why we have one judge at every legal court case. It is philosophically the best answer, because it is the only one that doesn’t not contradict with itself.”
The Nine justices of the Supreme Court of the United States of America say “hello”.
Nor should he.
Yeah, my posts are disappearing again!
I want to send a “thank you” to all who commented. I have learned a lot from all of you. Although I am disappointed in the harshness of the response, I am fully aware that it could’ve been worse, so I thank you in sparing me. However, I do want to ask one thing: Is there anything I said that was correct? As far as I know, good teachers will not only point out what needs correcting, but also will show the student the good that the student’s done and encourage the continuation of such behavior. Actually, I believe anyone who’s a parent should know that…but I guess that’s an assumption as well.
I am dead honest when I say I am in search for Truth. This is why I come here, because Atheist claim that they have Truth…so I want to learn from them. Just like your mentality for those of “religious” beliefs, you want to find out whether or not what they believe is True, or whether they’re believing a contradiction. I am just merely applying the same mentality to Atheist…to see if what they have is real or isn’t real. That is all. If you do not believe me, then I will ask you the same question you ask everyone else: “Where’s the evidence to support that?”
As far as future responses on this thread, I will not post any more responses (but I still might read…but there is no proof of that, so believe me or not believe me as you choose), but you might be able to find me on other Atheist posts from here on out (since I was accused of being a “drive-by”, I might have to stay around for a while so that I can prove that assumption false).
Again, thank you all for your time, and I hope we have more “friendly” debates in the future.
We would have friendly debates if you weren’t a dishonest hack with a passive-aggressive streak a mile wide. You’re also a coward. The moment you receive resistance for your arguments, you snipe at people and whine about the semantics of what an assumption is, then run away without actually addressing a single criticism. You mistake friendly debates for giving you room to lie for Jesus.
Take an introductory course in logic and critical thinking. This will help you to see logical errors when they are used, by yourself and by others. Ask yourself the obvious questions. If there is a logical defense for belief in any particular god, why hasn’t it been found by the people who do this for a living? If evolution has been disproven, for example, why isn’t the name of the person who disproved it as famous as Darwin? If evolution has been disproven then why isn’t there a huge outcry, millions strong all shouting “There it is! There is the disproof, finally, right there! Look at it!” Such a disproof would definitely make the cover of Time magazine or wherever. Why doesn’t the Catholic church accept that disproof if it exists?
If you use a bit of clever rhetoric to defend your belief in your god, does it also defend other people believing in other gods? Does it apply even to foul and disgusting religious beliefs, such as ritual cannibalism and human sacrifice?
Do you ever feel tempted to skirt the truth, avoid responding to valid criticism, or change the subject rather than concede a point? Those behaviors are signs. The truth will never need a lie to defend it.
You really do play an important role in deconverting those believers who come here. Many read but don’t post, only to see theists using deception, trickery, fallacies and outright lies to justify believing in what they claim is the truth. They may identify with the arguments put forth by people like you and wonder why those who spout those arguments virtually always resort to falsehoods.
Honesty is the answer. Be honest with yourself (intellectual honesty), be honest with others. If it turns out that your religious beliefs are as unconvincing as all of the other ones, admit it to yourself and to others. If you really care about the truth then one day you will be some form of agnostic/atheist. One day you might be having this conversation with someone else, and not in an Inception kind of way.
Basically, you can’t make logical conclusions out of make-believe. I told you and others told you – if you want to sincerely analyze what you wrote, you have to stop at every word that you can’t prove. If you assume something, and something follows from that assumption (as little as you’ve demonstrated that you know about logic), the given has to be true! If you are seeking truth, you can’t place fictional stand-ins as “givens” and then proceed from them. You have to stop and stand still and say, well what is a metaphysical Universe and why do I assume it exists? If you think morality can’t exist without “moral law” and from there, a moral law giver, you have been taken astray. I don’t think you’re a liar for Jesus; I think you’re a freshman in college. Good luck finding the truth; spelling your major concepts with capital letters is a give-away.
I changed my mind…I will respond to posts (since I assume that if I don’t, then all of you will think you’ve gotten the best of me, which, maybe you’re right or not, but again, no proof of the matter *yet*).
I have questions for you. You obviously got your “three points” comment from some kind of ap0logetics website. Now that it has been exposed as false, will you inform the website you got it from that it isn’t true? Do you wonder if they were already told and just…. forgot to admit it? Do you wonder if maybe they are Liars for Jesus, just hoping that those who read their crap weren’t able to see the obvious flaws? Do you wonder why any honest person running a website like that would allow obvious lies to remain on their website? Do you wonder any of that at all?
Or do you keep going back to a poison well expecting clean water?
There is plenty of proof that we have gotten the best of you, Liar for Jesus. Your unwillingness to admit it doesn’t change a thing. Any honest observer, believer or not, will see you for what you are.
Just another Liar for Jesus. Thanks for playing.
You think because there is no proof for no god means proof of god has a shot – bring it the FUCK on! That’s not being unkind to you. You want to prove something to someone and don’t prove it. You prove you’re a big whiner so far. You try to make a big impression but nobody has bitten, so you resort to pretending to have a problem with our attitudes. It’s not like you have made any original assertions before. We get a lot of dumbasses, and I’m not going to categorize you with them. That’s kind. You have the shine of an educated person, I don’t call you educated, but you like to think you’re more educated and logical than most, which is the most fun.
However, your logical fallacies abound; your excuses for making logical fallacies abound; your offense at being thrown off your game right away abounds. This is not light stuff we can just get high and fantasize about and go, “oh look at my fucking hand! Amazing shit!” So far, you have made one essay and don’t take to critiques of that essay, and then a lot of hand-waving bullshit you think makes us forget what you wrote in the first place. The gall to be offended and insulted because you did, well, you did apologize at the first for not being awfully smart. Nobody’s trying to tell you that you smell like a wet shitty dog and they had your mother last night for the last two weeks. We’re attacking arguments you made, with logical errors in it. Be more up for it, and stop insulting our intelligence with “profound” distractions like does Ursa Minor exist and Antarctica. None of that is relevant to your assertions and what you claim DOES exist.
Thankfully, I have been infallibly logicked out of existence, so I don’t have to participate in this. But somebody needs to remind JAGreen86 that changing the subject repeatedly is neither a valid logical argument nor a valid debating technique.
I think we can let this task to Kodie and all the others who already engaged JAGreen86: I don’t want to risk being logicked out of existence, that seems boring to be locked in non-existence.
[Comment that went way beyond violating a basic level of acceptability. Zotted. Please, don't do it again.]
I was quoting Kodie :)
Are these familiar, Liar for Jesus?
Follow Patheos on
Copyright 2008-2014, Patheos. All rights reserved.