|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Fri Jun 15, 2007 11:16 am
 |
|
|
|
Oh boy. Ohboyohboyohboy. I'll gladly participate.
Strangely enough, this seems to be nothing more than a slightly modified, re-hashed segment of carm.org, a laughable attempt at "destroying" atheism. Honestly, some satire just writes itself.
With that said, let the official debunkery begin!
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
I'll start with the section titled "Is Atheism Viable?", subtitled "My Religion is True By Default."
An arrogant presuppositionalist In discussions with atheists, I don't hear any evidence for the validity of atheism.
Presumption. As if atheists have to prove the nonexistence of something whose existence hasn't been proven in the first place.
Besides, "atheism" doesn't describe what I am, but instead what I'm not: a theist. Thus, because I am an atheist, I simply lack theism.
So how about giving us some evidence?
An arrogant presuppositionalist After all, how do you prove there is no God in the universe? How do you prove that in all places and all times, there is no God? You can't.
Therefore, my god exists. Pfft. Yet another presumptuous claim.
Speaking of which, have you been to the North Pole? No? Then how do you know that Santa doesn't exist?
An arrogant presuppositionalist Atheists must go on the attack and negate any evidences presented for Gods existence in order to give intellectual credence to their position.
That's assuming these so-called "evidences" prove anything at all. It's not negating; it's debunking. I could give you all kinds of "proof" that invisible dogs roam the bottom of the Atlantic Ocean. When the heathen nonbelievers claim that I'm wrong, I can say that the "amarinacanist" position survives solely by "negating" the proofs they are offered. Doesn't offer any credence to my position.
An arrogant presuppositionalist There is, however, only one way that atheism is intellectually defensible and that is in the abstract realm of simple possibility. In other words, it may be possible that there is no God. But, stating that something is possible doesn't mean that it is a reality or that it is wise to adopt the position. If I said it is possible that there is an ice cream factory on Jupiter, does that make it intellectually defensible or a position worth adopting merely because it is merely a possibility? Not at all. So, simply claiming a possibility based on nothing more than it being a possible option, no matter how remote, is not sufficient grounds for atheists to claim viability in their atheism. They must come up with more than "It is possible," or "There is no evidence for God," otherwise, there really must be an ice cream factory on Jupiter and the atheist should step up on the band wagon and start defending the position that Jupiterian ice cream exists.
This little "possibility vs. probability" tidbit is a rather common atheistic argument. Which makes me wonder why the author is using it in the first place.
And I haven't heard many atheists claim the nonexistence of God on the sole grounds that his nonexistence "possible." It seems that theists base their position on possibility more often than atheists.
An arrogant presuppositionalist At least we Christians have evidences for God's existence such as fulfilled biblical prophecy, Jesus' resurrection, the Transcendental Argument, the entropy problem, etc.
You mean the confirmation bias, the forgery, the escape route, and the unclear distinction between a closed system and an open system? Sound evidence you've got there, skipper.
An arrogant presuppositionalist But there is another problem for atheists. Refuting evidences for Gods existence does not prove atheism true anymore than refuting an eyewitness testimony of a marriage denies the reality of the marriage.
So you're telling me that you've personally seen God? Or did God forget to pay the child support this year?
An arrogant presuppositionalist Since atheism cannot be proven and since disproving evidences for God does not prove there is no God, atheists have a position that is intellectually indefensible. At best, atheists can only say that there are no convincing evidences for God so far presented. They cannot say there are no evidences for God because the atheist cannot know all evidences that possibly exist in the world. At best, the atheist can only say that the evidence so far presented has been insufficient.
Once again, you start from the assumption that your religion is true from the beginning and that atheists have the burden of proof.
And as far as I know, you can't know all possible evidences in the world either. So how do you know that there is a god?
An angry presuppositionalist This is why atheists need to attack Christianity. It is because Christianity makes very high claims concerning Gods existence which challenges their atheism and pokes holes in their vacuum. They like the vacuum. They like having the universe with only one god in it: themselves.
Nope. Atheists tend to speak out against Christianity because, interestingly enough, most atheists seem to come from Christian-populated environments. It's the religion that most highly affects most atheists.
As for your last little comment, wouldn't this mean that your god is an atheist, since his only god is himself (I already have a thread here on this very topic, and won't discuss it further here)?
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Phew. That's just the first page. I'll come back for more later, probably.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Jun 15, 2007 11:20 am
|
|
|
 |
*Woefully dejected and disappointed sigh.* I love the author takes the population sample of "all Atheists I know" and then makes a sweeping generalization based on (my estimation of) 10-20 people out of 3,000,000+
Newsflash: Small portion of Atheists are not carbon copies of everyone. Additionally, I'll provide an algebraic example:
Some Atheists' Behavior =/= All Atheists Behavior
Also, allow me to quote the author:
Bigot Atheists use the same tactics as most companies that have something to sell. They are selling you a dogma that on the surface looks better, more popular, more intelligent so that people who are concerned about their appearance, about being popular, about what others think and about fitting in with the "in crowd" will join the movement. This is anything but freethinking. This is pure manipulation and nothing more than emotional abuse. Atheism preys on people's emotions and desire to do what's popular.
No. Atheism does not have a tactic it uses. It gathers practitioners (so to speak) by logic. Because Atheism is in and of itself based off of logic, to not appeal to logic is impossible. In addition, Atheism does not have a dogma per se, but rather promotes an individual's own doctrine. This rips the rest of your argument apart like an idiotic teenager in a "Friday the 13th" movie to Jason's machete. Finally, I believe you've confused religion with Atheism. It's okay, Bigot; You don't know what you're doing.
In closing, the author fails by default.
Yes, I realize this may have been a bit harsh, but I'm just playing by the author's own rules: Judge not, lest ye be judged.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Jun 15, 2007 12:24 pm
|
|
|
|
Quote: It is impossible for us limited human beings to know for a fact that a god does not exist. To know absolutely that a god does not exist one would have to be omniscient. Since no one is omniscient then it stands to reason that there is a chance that a god exists. This then becomes Agnosticism instead of Atheism.
All due respect to Richard Dawkins, but I know for a fact that the Flying Spaghetti Monster does not exist, as do theists. The notion that the only way to disprove something is by being omniscient is false. Common sense works just as well.
Quote: This is why the lack of belief defense of atheists is not logical. It ignores the reality that people categorize concepts along a continuum beginning at total rejection and ending at total acceptance. It is human nature to do this. It's impossible to just "lack belief" once information about something is obtained. As a result, it would be more logical for an Atheist to take a position of "I have decided to lack belief in God", or "After reviewing the evidence, I make a decision to not believe in God".
This argument would work had atheists been given a valid reason to believe in the existence of a god. It is indeed impossible to lack belief once information has been obtained, but atheists never obtain this so-called information, because we do not believe it is scientifically viable. This quote makes the assumption that atheists have seen evidence that verifies the existence of God, when that simply is not the case.
Quote: After all, how do you prove there is no God in the universe? How do you prove that in all places and all times, there is no God? You can't.
If someone cannot DISprove something, this does not mean it exists beyond a shadow of a doubt. (Not to mention the fact that theists ignore disproof at every turn, but don't try telling them that.)
Quote: In other words, it may be possible that there is no God. But, stating that something is possible doesn't mean that it is a reality or that it is wise to adopt the position. If I said it is possible that there is an ice cream factory on Jupiter, does that make it intellectually defensible or a position worth adopting merely because it is merely a possibility? Not at all. So, simply claiming a possibility based on nothing more than it being a possible option, no matter how remote, is not sufficient grounds for atheists to claim viability in their atheism.
The difference between a possible option and a viable claim is that a viable claim has evidence to support it. Making something up, such as the "ice cream factory on Jupiter" story, is different than formulating a hypothesis, such as "God cannot concievably exist". Atheists present evidence for this. You did not present evidence for an ice cream factory on Jupiter, and so it is unlikely anyone will take it seriously.
Quote: Since atheism cannot be proven and since disproving evidences for God does not prove there is no God, atheists have a position that is intellectually indefensible.
Atheism is not a theory, it is a way of thought, and as such, it cannot be "proven" or "disproven". Also, disproof of evidence for God may not prove there is no God, but it is enough to warrant disbelief in people who choose to accept said evidence above a book written 6,000 years ago by people who believed rain was a giant invisible man pissing into a sieve.
Also, huge bonus. The poll on his website indicates that roughly 96% of the viewers of his page are atheists. Way to appeal to your intended demographic, simp. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Jun 15, 2007 1:02 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Jun 15, 2007 1:13 pm
|
|
|
|
Semper Fiasco Crick McCracken Are you OBJECTIVELY examining evidence that is presented or are you just denying it because it isn't scientific or because it isn't what YOU want? This literally made me want to cry in laughter. If you want to know what's wrong with this statement, all you have to do is imagine this situation: "After years of painstaking research and effort, I have discovered sound evidence for the existence of leprechauns. The orange hair on this green hat clearly proves my hypothesis. ... What? You say this isn't sound scientific evidence? Ah, but leprechauns are under no obligation to meet YOUR requirements. The evidence doesn't HAVE to be scientific. Dare I mention the pixie dust on my jacket?" The major flaw of this site's thesis lies in the fact that it assumes the truth of Christianity before it even begins to prove anything. I'm beginning to think that this site, like Landover Baptist or Objective Ministries, is a clever work of satire.
I've seen people all over this guild identify these types of sites as "clever satire". The sad thing is, there are actually people that are this stupid. I wouldn't doubt it's real.
EDIT: If you get the chance, watch the video called "The Collapse of Atheism". It's about 40 minutes long, but good for a laugh. A third grader could take this video apart piece by piece. It says there is evidence for God, but never makes an attempt to present a shred of it.
EDIT #2: I made my first edit before I finished watching the film. Towards the end, I was hoping they would take the leap and pull out the big guns. Then finally, it happened: they made the claim that Hitler was an atheist. THAT'S the ticket!!! Anytime you want to make your position look good, compare the opposition to the Third Reich! It's overused, and easily countered in most situations. In fact, I think a few quotes from a little book called Mein Kampf might alleviate any suspicion that Hitler was atheist:
"I believe today that my conduct is in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator." -page 46
"This human world of ours would be inconceivable without the practical existence of a religious belief." -page 152
"Any violence which does not spring from a spiritual base, will be wavering and uncertain. It lacks the stability which can only rest in a fanatical outlook" -page 171
"Once again the songs of the fatherland roared to the heavens along the endless marching columns, and for the last time the Lord's grace smiled on His ungrateful children." -Volume 1, Chapter 7 (on World War I)
"The application of force alone, without moral support based on a spiritual concept, can never bring about the destruction of an idea or arrest the propagation of it, unless one is ready and able ruthlessly to exterminate the last upholders of that idea even to a man, and also wipe out any tradition which it may tend to leave behind." -Volume 1, Chapter 5
Smackdown. Next time you try to pull a blitzkrieg on atheism, remember that you're up against people who do research. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Jun 15, 2007 6:22 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Jun 15, 2007 7:42 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reply
