Ya Just Can't Trust an Atheist!

I always get a kick out of the Atheists god-haters who try to have discussions with Christians. (1)

They’re so arrogant in their unbelief and ignorance! This attitude of theirs usually manifests itself online via contentious debates in chatrooms, or on discussion forums. (2)

After wading through all the garbage that most of them consider “argumentation,” (which in reality means “slanderous statements, and insults about your mom”) the Christian at some point in the discussion, begins to hear actual objections raised by the Atheist.

On the whole, these objections are nothing more than an allusion to his or her personal experience.

This could be a simple, on the surface allusion, such as: “I know some Christians are ignorant and close minded, because there is this girl in my biology class; and SHE is a Christian, as well as ignorant and close minded!”

Or, it could be a more in-depth allusion, such as: “I know that Michael Behe’s irreducible complexity argument is invalid, because I know that certain complex cellular mechanisms, working via natural processes, tend to climb towards complexity!”

In this article, I will show why Christians should never let an Atheist get away with alluding to personal experience (of any kind) to try and win an argument!

Simple Allusions:

Generally speaking today, most of the contentious, God-hating, Atheists that you will run across in a chatroom or forum, are metaphysical naturalists. They bow knee to their god of chaos, and worship at the alter of evolution!

Before you allow such a person to make arguments based on his or her personal experience, simply point out to them, that, given the truth of their evolutionary views, you (the Christian) have no reason to assume that they are telling the truth!

The strongest, smartest, and most cunning creatures survive, right? Suppose the cheetah, camouflages herself in the surrounding environment, so that she can more easily attack the nearby Gazelle? What is this, but a deception on the part of the Cheetah? “It’s ok over here Gazelle; it is safe; there is no danger!”

Utilizing deception as a means to get ahead is nothing new to this world, especially if you believe in Evolution. (3)

I have heard a particular argument many times from Atheists, that goes something like this:

“Preachers just want to get your money, and churches are out to rob you!”

When I ask them which particular denomination has robbery as a foundational creed, they always decline to answer. I usually follow it up with another question.

“Well, perhaps then, you can tell me the name of this particular church, so that we can see if they need to be disciplined by their denomination?”

They either say that they can’t remember the name, or that it was an independent church, acting on its own; specifically a church that is not listed in the phone book, nor has its own website.

How dang convenient, right?

So, in this particular case, the God-hater is lying about his or her experience, in order to make the argument: “Churches just want to get your money.” They expect you to grant to them the truth of their personal experience here.

Sorry I ain’t that kind! Especially given a belief in evolution, lying would be a prudent way to further a claim!

Complex Allusions:

Suppose though, that they can prove that they are not lying?

What if they try and argue based on more generally accepted experiences?

For example, I hear this argument all the time:

“Christianity was the bloodiest religion ever. More people died from Christianity, than any other religion! Look at the Crusades or the Witch Trials!”

No Christian would deny the reality of the Crusades or the witch trials. The unbeliever in this case, is appealing to experiences that none of us have ever experienced, but all present (generally) accept as actually having taken place.

Or suppose the God-hater makes the argument, “Noah’s Flood was impossible because there isn’t nearly enough water on Earth to cover the entire planet!”

There are two major problems with this, and I’ll point them out.

Problem 1: Perceptual foundations are incoherent, and useless to the unbeliever!

We all know that at times, our perceptions are false.

I’m sure if God has some woman in mind for me to fall in love with, the moment I first see her, I’ll probably see little hearts floating around my own head for an hour or so afterwards!

The guy who takes a hit of acid, thinks spiders are crawling all over him! The pilgrims, looked to the west, and saw “Far blue mountains.” Do you think they were disappointed when they reached those mountains and found out that they were really not blue after-all?

The point is, our perceptions; our empirical observations, often are plain wrong about reality.

In order to determine which of our perceptions are real, and which are mere hallucinations; we have to come up with some standard. But, this poses a problem doesn’t it? To establish a standard, you have to rely on the very empirical experiences that you are trying to provide a standard for in the first place!

The unbeliever has no way of providing a valid criteria for his or her own experiences, without begging the question, or being completely arbitrary. Because of this, no Christian should grant to them, the validity of their own sense perceptions! If the unbeliever cannot tell which of his experiences are true, and which are false, then the Christian should not grant them this right.

Make them earn it! (4)

Problem 2: Imprisoned by experience!

Even if I were nice enough to grant the unbelieving God-haters, the validity of their own sense perceptions; they still have the problem of coming up with coherent statements based off of these perceptions.

Let’s say that we grant them, that they really are seeing a piece of white chalk. How do you get from THAT perception, to an interesting statement like, “I love you,” or, "Christianity is the bloodiest religion ever?

The unbeliever would perhaps try to use deductive reasoning (5).

The classic deductive example would be:

Socrates is a man
All men are mortal.
Socrates is mortal!

But you see, here, in order for this to be valid, we have to know that ALL men are mortal! Unless the God-hater has personally experienced that ALL men are mortal, then he or she cannot make this argument! They can never know that all men are mortal, until they themselves die! (But then, they wouldn’t be around to argue anymore! Lol)

So, they cannot utilize deductive inferences in order to make statements based on their experiences.

Suppose they try using inductive inferences instead?

Every crow I have seen so far, was black, therefore, the next crow I see, will very probably be black.

Unfortunately the unbeliever cannot show that the required assumption here is certain, or even probably true! (6)

IN CONCLUSION:

Christians! Don’t EVER allow a God-hating Atheist to appeal to his or her own experiences in an attempt to validate an argument!

I have shown 1. that it is unlikely they are telling the truth; 2. That they cannot know the difference between true perceptions and false ones without begging the question; 3. Even if they could, they could not make valid assumptions based on these experiences (even if they were true!)

Don’t let them bog you down in discussions about the nature of thermodynamics, or textual criticism. Cut them off at the knees, and show them the foolishness of their own God-hating philosophy! Show them that it cannot stand!

This is after-all, what we’re commanded to do!

“We demolish arguments and every pretension that sets itself up against the knowledge of God, and we take captive every thought to make it obedient to Christ” 2nd Corinthians 10:5

b[/b] If you’re an Atheist reading this, stop crying, I know you don’t think you believe in a “god” and therefore want to argue that you cannot possibly hate Him. Sorry to burst your bubble, but, you DO believe in God. It is not, however, the purpose of this particular blog to prove it.

b[/b] Unfortunately, some Christians respond in like manner, only serving to agitate the situation.

b[/b] Again, if you’re an Atheist reading this, stop crying! I’m using the term “evolution” here to describe the broad overarching system of thought, including gradual change through time, coupled with natural selection etc. I know that you think you’re an expert when it comes to the theory of Evolution, and I know that you greatly desire to discuss the particulars of this false myth. Unfortunately, such a semantic argument is irrelevant for the case I’m making here. For the purposes of this blog, “Evolution” involves all the particulars of your false myth, from the big bang, to complex life popping up out of mud puddles!

b[/b] That is not the end of their problems either. Even if we grant them the ability to make valid distinctions between what is real, and what is hallucination, they still have to provide a criteria for judging between the different perceptions themselves. They must give an account for the random particulars of their experience, and provide some way of classing these experiences together in a meaningful way. Their brains also must form abstract concepts based off of the empirical data provided by the eye. The unbeliever has to give an account of how sense perceptions are imputed to the brain in such a way that will form an abstract concept! All of these objections can get pretty philosophical and abstract, and so I’ll only briefly mention them here in this footnote.

b[/b] Deductive reasoning is moving from a universal truth, to a particular truth.

b[/b] Inductive reasoning is moving from a particular truth to a universal one. The classic Christian argument from induction is well known by many. I have also recently written a blog on it as well, so, I’ll not comment further on it here.

I’ve seen some pretty big straw men in my life. But this is like a fricken straw castle.

If anything, this entire thing just exposes your inability to understand other’s arguments, and displays your infantile understanding of what deduction is and how it is used, and what evolution as a process is and does. Your refutations are laughably poor and of little substance.

I suggest you have this thread immediately deleted. Go back, rethink everything you wrote here, and revise it completely. If this is not done, I doubt anyone will take it seriously.

I’m assuming that you are alluding to your prior experience of straw men, in order to proclaim that this article of mine is a “straw castle.”

But, you see…that is the very thing that I deny you.

Prove that this article even exists to be critiqued!

Do it, or I’m afraid I can’t take your critique seriously.

I love Christians.
Their tenacity and stupidity makes them entertaining clowns.

‘Prove the negative’ they cry.

‘God is because this book says so’ they scream.

I wonder if not believing in Santa Clause makes one an aclausist or if disproving Santa becomes a strategy for proving him.

How can I hate something that doesn’t exist?
Do I deny Big Foot’s existence because I hate him, also?

Can’t trust Christians…too stupid to be trusted and I can’t trust anyone that needs a reward and a threat to do the right thing or to be just and good to another.

Christians dance around the issue but they still can’t provide rational arguments and proof for their absurd claims.

I use Dawkins argument and ask:

Do they believe in Zeus?
If not then they too are atheists.

Do they believe in the absolute?
Then show me the money!!! ](*,)

Deductive reasoning is assuming a fact and then finding reason’s, no matter how ridiculous, to support it?

Nice.

Here’s a better argument:
Cause and Effect with a first effect with no cause…for some inexplicably pathetic reason.

While I could go on and on about this article, I’ll just pick on one thing:

You can believe in something and not let it dictate your life. I believe being a toolish kiss-ass will get you farther in life than doing the ‘right’ thing, but I still do what I think is right.

Richard Dawkins himself has spoken about this. He thinks Darwinism is the best explanation we have for life, but he promotes very un-Darwinian ideals. He’s all up for social wellfare; how is helping out the less fortunate Darwinian at all?

And you’re talking about utilizing deception…good lord. In your defense, maybe you didn’t know you were being fallacious.

A personal experience of one instance of something is a bad reason to believe anything. You don’t need to claim their story is a lie because it’s a terrible argument whether or not it’s the truth. Would you point out a christian using a terrible argument, a ‘simple allusion’ as you dubbed it? I’ll bet you wouldn’t. At least I would have before I challenged you to do so.

P.S. I hate your god. That doesn’t make anything I said here a lie.

As sad as this is, I suppose I have to thank you Mr. Anthem for at least reading some of my article.

I wish I had the opportunity to thank you for responding to my arguments as well, but unfortunately, you’ve done nothing but arbitrarily assert a contrary position.

You can believe in something and not let it dictate your life. I believe being a toolish kiss-ass will get you farther in life than doing the ‘right’ thing, but I still do what I think is right.

If I understand you right here, you are saying that, even though you may realize lying is a survival tactic, and beneficial for gaining your desired ends, that you still arbitrarily act to the contrary.

You insist that YOU personally act against this “truth” of nature (in your case, being a “toolish kiss-@**”) apparently for some “higher” ideal that you share with Richard Dawkins.

Sorry, but… in all likely-hood, you are lying about this as well. It is perfectly natural for you to claim that you don’t act in accordance with your beliefs, (especially since you’re trying to win an argument against a hated Christian.)

I won’t grant this to you. However, it is always possible that you’re NOT lying, and that you really do act contrary to your views about nature. However, then I would point you towards the critique in my article of the more “complex” perceptual allusions. Not only do you have no valid grounds to claim perceptual validity, or claim any coherence to your experiences, your own statements refute themselves! Consider this:

A personal experience of one instance of something is a bad reason to believe anything

Do you know this because of your own personal experience? If not, then do you just intuit it a’priori?

Sorry Mr. Anthem, but perhaps you should have chosen a different passage from my article to critique.
I do give you props for at least trying though.
God bless,

Shotgun

who wouldn’t believe Mr. Anthem about the claims of hate against his creator, but for the fact that God has revealed the hate of unregenerate man.

Here are some other methods of evolutionary deception:

1)Masking your inability to support your claim by reversing the argument and asking for proof for a negative.

2)Masking your self-hatred behind imaginary beings promising a better life. A better reality to replace the one you hate and you fear.

3)Masking your cowardice and fear of death and your need for eternal life behind a fairy tale that conveniently promises it, and then pretending it is a product of free-thinking and reason.

4)Masking your prejudiced, childish outlook behind some pretended search for truth.
First have the answer ready and then figure out how to manipulate the data so as to reach it. This pretend thinking is the most funny and it involves selective reasoning.

5)Mask your inability to provide proof and rational argument, in support of your opinions, by using verbal acrobatics and clouding the issue behind ink-stains, like this thread.

6)Mask your pretentious self-importance behind displays of hypocritical selflessness and your belief that you deserve eternity, no less, behind the farce of humility. An indirect method towards power usually used by the weak and feeble minded.

Thank you for providing me with a new target.

My dear Mr. Sayer,

From your previous two responses, I am lead to believe that you haven’t even read my article at all.

That aside however; I am a tad curious about your statements so far…

You’ve listed six “methods for deception.”

How do you know these 6 “methods” really ARE what you claim? Does your knowledge about them arise from your own personal experience? If so, you should really address the arguments in my article before expecting me to take your claims seriously.

Have a great weekend. I hope it’s as beautiful wherever you are, as it is here in DC!

From
Shotgun

Who quite frankly is glad to be a target, but hopes Mr. Sayers aim improves with practice.

Feel free to make that argument.

Yea, some Christians certainly do.

What the hell was the point of this little sentence here…?

Personal experience is all any one has.

Seems kinda pointless, since personal experience is all any body has to argue with, theist and atheist alike.

You say that as if it’s a bad thing.

What do you think someone on online chatrooms stands to gain by being deceptive in their arguments…how can someone benefit, survival wise, from being deceptive on online chatrooms? It’s not like we get payed to argue…most times it’s out of boredom…

This is just silly…is this the best atheist argument you’ve heard, or even one of the most popular?

Even if Christianity was the bloodiest religion ever or still is, that does not warrant that god doesn’t exist. It doesn’t matter what’s wrong with this “atheist argument.”

What does that mean for your position?

Yup.

I’ve changed a couple of words…tell me if it still make sense

You go, girl!

Who isn’t?

‘This post is one of the most retarded posts I’ve ever seen.’ Is that coherent? It’s weird that it is isn’t it?

I doubt anyone has used “this piece of chalk is white” as a premise for “Christianity is the bloodiest religion ever”

Putting the idiocy of this aside, and granting you for a minute whatever point you were trying to make, how exactly is the theist exempt from this when attempting to prove God?

But you can, right?

Those wily atheists…let’s see what else they have up their dirty sleeves.

But you can though, right?

Then what has the atheist left to appeal to?

Nice.

I missed the part where you showed why the nature of thermodynamics and textual criticism was foolish.

But you don’t, right?

No, that’s actually not what deductive reasoning is.

No.

I’m just waiting for one of the more respectable theists to come in here and make fun of you, but let’s face it, they’re just glad there’s any of you left, regardless of how ridiculous your reasons for theism may be. They’ll just shake their heads quietly in embarrassment that you even exist, but ultimately will not say anything.

In short, no one agrees with you and you’re just not very bright, shotgun.

Why is it that you keep blessing me though I continually ask you not to? This is not very christian of you. It’s spiteful and childish. I notice you didn’t bless the others who disagree with you.

Dear Mr. Challenged Intellect,

It’s all from my personal experience.

Where does your knowledge come from, a book or THE BOOK or did your mommy and daddy tell you the TRUTH?

Try thinking on your own. It doesn’t hurt and it just might save you from appearing less stupid than you are right now.

Thanks for not answering…it was answer enough.
Like a classic deluded, fanatical mind you run at the first sign of having your pants pulled down around your ankles.

Stay safe in the stupidest industrialized nation on the planet earth.
You are the west’s version of Iran.

It seems that the following line from my article is particularly insightful given the responses I’ve received so far:

After wading through all the garbage that most of them consider “argumentation,” (which in reality means: slanderous statements, and insults about your mom) the Christian at some point in the discussion, begins to hear actual objections raised by the Atheist.

Can it be that we are just a few “yo momma” jokes away from having a real discussion of the arguments I have raised?

I must again thank Mr. Anthem for at least attempting a counter-argument.

I suppose Mr. Erlir could also be included, though his “counter-argument” rests on two slippery positions.

1. I, as a Christian, cannot account for my own sense perceptions either…

and

2. Sense perceptions are “all we have…” and therefore, must be beyond critique by meddlesome farm boys from NC.

Well… MR. Erlir:

In response to 1. I simply deny it. Do you suppose that I would write an article such as this, if I didn’t have some way to account for the very perceptions and experiences that I deny to you and your comrades?

In response to 2: If your sense perceptions are all you have, then you had best find some way to defeat this argument of mine, or else you’re in a world of hurt. How annoying it would be indeed…not to be granted the validity of your own perceptions! You wouldn’t be able to make insulting statements against Christians were you denied the ability!

Yes sir… you better get busy.

From
Shotgun… who hopes God blesses Mr. Anthem…

P.S.

While the intent of this blog was not to detail the Christians epistemological foundations for experiences… a great description of our philosophical system can be found in Van Til’s “Defense of the Faith” or Rushdoony’s “The One and the Many.” Perhaps in the near future, I might write another article discussing the topic in detail for you guys. (Only on popular demand… of course!)

I greatly appreciate your contribution Churro.

Let’s suppose that your sense perceptions really have no objective validity, (in this sense meaning, no correlation with or parallel to anything that actually IS the case…I.E. “reality”) then why should I believe any of your conclusions about (in this case) the etymology of the term “Valid?” Why do YOU?

While trusting your own perceptions (because they are “all you got”) may prove to be pragmatically useful in many situations (assuming that you can trust the perceptions you’ve received that inform you about usefulness) when it comes to trying to prove that something is or is not the case, they wouldn’t be of much help in the least.

A child who believes in Santa, is caused (by what I presume is a false belief) to act “good.” This false belief of his, causes him to act in a way that pragmatically benefits him in the long run (he ends up getting presents at Christmas time!) The child perhaps MIGHT try to argue for the existence of Santa, based on this pragmatic success, and if we accepted that argument, then he would have a very strong case indeed!

While pragmatic success might be interesting at times, it isn’t convincing, especially when someone else (the Christian in this case) can provide for the “validity” of sense perceptions (as I defined the term above) while also giving an account about the apparent pragmatic success of others.

Shot

Shitgun, what sensual perceptions lead you to the ‘truth’ concerning the existence of a God?

Bam

What if the child has the erroneous perception that it can float on air, which goes against reason and our experiences of the world, what pragmatic consequences will ensue?
Will belief in Santa get you a gift or will mommy get you one and the belief or not is irrelevant?

Bam

If a retarded mind convinces itself, because the belief offers a relief from reality, that the world in its head is the actual one then how can he test his belief and make sure it isn’t just in its retarded head?

Bam

Why are you a coward and only respond selectively?
Afraid?
Do you sense that I will not fall for your contrived reasoning and your little verbal acrobatics and your pretentious style, trying to seem thoughtful and objective?

Bam

It is you that has a proposition.
The proposition states, if I’m not mistaken, that God created everything.
Therefore the burden of proof, coward, is upon you to provide reasoning and evidence.

If you wish to discount sensual perceptions and empiricism then posit an alternative source of knowledge and experience.
Then argue why it is more reliable.

In what way are they “slippery?”

What more could someone ask for…Case closed, then.

Yes, I do suppose this.

What argument?

…corny as hell.

Fail.

…doing what? You haven’t said anything…

Being that physiologically atheists and theists vary very little, you’ll be hard pressed to show that what you’ve claimed of the atheists is not applicable to theists as well.

But were you to have been honest with your post, you would have skipped the very blatantly ignorant attempts at a criticism of logic and empiricism, which is a double aged sword, and had gone straight to the point, which is that theists ought not debate with atheists. Which is fine with me, since most of you fellers are dumb as fuck, and likely to go ape-shit without your illusions.

And may the great goddess Athe Bless you, too.

On the trustworthiness of Christians.

Can you trust a man that remains kind and does the right thing because there is a God up there that might punish him? Is this kindness genuine?

Can you trust a mind whose judgment has become convinced by childish irrational fairy tales? Is this judgment reliable?

Can you trust a mind that contradicts itself and uses selective reasoning to defend an opinion that is rooted in fear and existential anxiety? Will not this mind buckle at the slightest pressure and succumb to self-interests at the slightest opportunity,pretending, all along, that it’s righteous and ‘good’?

From the beginning of social interactions morality has been the basic element of integrating the individual within a group.
The concepts of evil and good are founded on whether a behavior or an idea is beneficial or not to the majority within any specific social system.
No God is required for morality to evolve.

In fact all social animals exhibit a moral sense and a submission to group dynamics and group interests.

That Christians need an added reward for remaining nice to their fellow man makes them both shallow and hypocritical.
That Christians hide their ego and arrogance behind pretentious humility where they beleive in the most egotistical, self-important world views, only exposes their real humility and selflessness. That they accept naive dogmas that offer eternity and perspectives where they deserve an omnipotence to be their parent and in whose image they were created, shows how duplicitous they really are.

No wars and no persecutions have ever been conducted in the name of atheism.
But, perhaps, a little elitism is warranted at this point, before the rabble become too overconfident with their absurd beliefs and sense of self-righteousness.

The idea that anyone not being convinced by childish world-views is like calling anyone that is not convinced Unicorns exist a believer in the non-existence of unicorns.

The one making a proposition is the one that must provide evidence or coherent, rational arguments in support of their
proposition and then he must maintain a healthy degree of skepticism.

Science and philosophy deal with theories based on shared experiences, honest rational exploration and profound intelelctual humility.
Religions deal in certainties and absolutes and they attract the ones who fear the most or have experienced some traumatic event or old age which has rendered them vulnerable to anything that promises a relief.
Religious beliefs are dependent on human misery and ignorance and fear.
Their Gods always conveniently occupy the unexplored territories of human perception and are routinely pushed back by human awareness and gnosis.
Whatever man does not comprehend or fears he calls God so as to make it both comprehensible, in an ambiguous way, and less threatening through sacrifice and submission and groveling. This is why religions always attract the downtrodden, uneducated, desperate and cowardly.

I say what cannot be truly trusted is not a rational mind that will do what is good for itself and in so doing will be logical, tolerant and abiding by common sense rules, but the irrational, ignorant fanatical minds who through their sheer stupidity can blow themselves up in the name of Allah, burn themselves in protest or kill those that do not adhere to what they think is the one and only explanation for existence .

Stupidity and the mental and psychological stunting it is rooted in is far more dangerous and untrustworthy than any rational mind. It is chaotic and emotionally driven.
A female.

Apollo be with us and may Dionysus be merciful.

Nope. But, personally, I am kind because I see God as the highest good. Being a Christian only out of fear or awe is just pathetic and must be corrected rationally, I frown on such people. Tsk.

Nope.

Nope. What you are describing is a mugger. Haha.

I am always surprised by the philosophical exquisiteness displayed in these forums.

Mr. Erlir, the depth of your counter arguments belie your brilliance as a philosopher! It takes a particular stroke of genius to express yourself in very short and to the point phrases! Your one liners aside however, I do find a few issues in your most recent response.

You make this statement:

Being that physiologically atheists and theists vary very little, you’ll be hard pressed to show that what you’ve claimed of the atheists is not applicable to theists as well.

You are, of course, making this declaration based solely on your own sense perceptions! That sir…happens to be the very thing that I’m denying you in my article. Until you can provide for (account for) the validity of your own sense perceptions, then your arguments based on these will be difficult to accept.

I also have another issue with the above quote…and this will affect Mr. Sayer as well.

One of the pre-Nicene church fathers, (patristic apologists) tried to argue that Christians didn’t need to account for reality, because…when it came down to it…the Greeks couldn’t either!

Arguing in such a manner, (at the base of it) entails an ad hominem fallacy. It could be the case that no one can validate sense perceptions; that, however, in no way alleviates you from trying to answer the critique. Any claim about the Christian, while possibly being true or not…is irrelevant in this situation.

My argument (in the article which none of you seem to have read) is leveled specifically against the more common forms of “Atheism,” including such particular beliefs as metaphysical naturalism.

“But you can’t account for your perceptions either…” is an irrelevant objection, not to mention it begs the question that your opponent even exists to fail at giving an adequate account!

My final issue with your recent response Mr. Erlir, is that you form a false characterization of my position when you say the following:

“…theists ought not debate with atheists.”

This is certainly an unfair representation of what I’ve written so far. I can’t speak for the other God-haters (who happen to worship some false deity) but…as for Christians, we are called to engage the world…to “take captive every argument that sets itself up against the truth of Christ.” (2 Corinthians 10:4)

It is not my intention to dissuade discussion with Atheist God-haters. In fact, I encourage it; that’s why I’m having so much fun with you guy’s!

To Mr. Sayer:

Your recent response perhaps would be more interesting posted in a more relevant thread. It unfortunately doesn’t address any of the issues I’ve raised, and…as I pointed out to Erlir above…it constitutes an ad hominem appeal. While your ad hominem is not necessarily fallacious in this case (as Mr. Erlirs was…) it is never-the-less just as irrelevant.

If you want to challenge the validity of the Christians perceptual foundations…then… I suppose you could always start a thread of your own.

I hope I’ve inspired in you guy’s some deeper thinking!
God bless you in your search for truth.

Shotgun

The depth of your essay makes clear the amount of time you’ve spent studying empiricism and logic. What’s deduction again? Well, my dear fellow. Why, deduction is simply going from the general to the particular…der…derr…derrrrrrrr. What’s this? You want to know what induction is, as well? Why, that’s simply the opposite of deduction. It’s when you go from the particular to the general…durpty derrr…So you see my dear fellow, after clearly demonstrating my full grasp of empiricism and logic, I can now make the claim that only a particular group of people with certain beliefs have a problem using empiricism and logic, while another particular group of people with other beliefs do not. But, off course, I don’t have to give reasons why only this group faces these problems. No. I’ll just go on and skip this part altogether.

Up yours, too.

I doubt that you’ve understood anything I wrote.

Amazing. Simply amazing you were able to make this obser-fucking-vasion. But tell me, why should I, a causal reader of this thread, believe that your observation about Erlir’s observation is true? Why should I believe anything you say?

I’m pointing to errors in your “essay” and then you come back and tell me that I have to do what your essay tells me to do before I can even tell you your essay is garbage…which it is.

My point is you have yet to isolate atheists as being the only ones who face the “problems” that you raised. I put the word problem in quotations because as you present them, they are not problems at all. But I’m not holding this against you. I’m granting you that they are actual problems to be faced.

It’s Satyr.

You didn’t point anything. You only claimed that it was an ad hom.

What the fuck are you talking about? What ad hom?

If you’re critiquing empiricism and the foundations of logic, then that critique extends to all whom use experience and logic as a means to their ideas and opinions. That means theists, atheists, Hindus, Buddhists (basically humans). You have yet to make a case for how the “problems” you spoke of are applicable only to atheists (that is to say to a group of humans who lack belief in something)…It’s not very hard to understand, and yet, you still don’t get it.

I’ve lost precious braincells reading your idiotic attempts at a critique of empiricism and logic. Unless you respond to my post, in total, this will be the last time I post in this topic.

Shotput

Your reluctance, of course, to engage the questions posited is understandable and wise.
An absurdity can only stand by using avoidance and selective reasoning, as well as insinuation.

The fact is that anyone that dismisses a possibility, on the grounds that it does not adhere to the basic premises of rationality and empiricism as well as to scientific and honest methodology, can be considered a believer in the opposite.
But the one who denies a proposition is merely the one that remains unconvinced by the evidence and the arguments presented.

If I tell you that I am God, then your disbelief will make you both a disbeliever and a sinner in a world where I am considered a God.

A disbeliever in unicorns can be called an A-unicornist, I suppose, and a mind that does not consider the possibility of a god Thor and his large hammer, could be called an athorist or more generally an atheist, and I’m sure that you are both.
You atheist you.

Unfortunately this does nothing to further your cause, as a theist and a follower of a particular brand of theism no doubt, nor does it make you be perceived as a legitimate philsophical position or to be taken seriously.

We can admit that anything is possible and one must maintain an open mind, but possibilities are placed on a heighrarchy of probability based on their evidence and the rational arguments supporting them.
We can say that Leperchauns could exist, and nobody can deny the possibility, but not that they probably exist, given shared experience, our understanding of the world, and a precise definition of the term 'exists.

I personally do not think theists, of every ilk, deserve any seriousness and their arguments are soon exposed as childish and ones that make you question the very quality, maturity and health of the brain producing them.
Fear is a terrible inspiration and hope is an even worse mentor.

If a man came to you and told you he beleived in Santa then you would automatically thnik there was something wrong with him, if he was not joking. But still, you would have to admit that the possibility of a Santa was still there no matter how ridiculous and improbable it was.

The very starting proposition of a theist, that of a beginning, is an absurdity in and of itself, since there is no empirical experience supporting such a claim and since this God is always placed in these mystical, ambiguous other-worldly dimensions that do not follow the laws of nature and so can avoid the human experience. How convenient and cowardly.
Then to ascribe to this beginning a consciousness and an intelligence, no doubt, a will, is to avoid the very definitions of these terms and their necessity as products of a forever altering universe.

So, although you take on this air of intellectual objectivity and pretentious seriousness, meant to put on the show of a deep thinker, your very proposition paints you as a child with deep anxieties, fears and an already estalbished subjective objective.

Nevertheless I would love for you to expand upon the reasoning that resulted in your belief and the evidence you propose to justify it.

You see, I’ve been debating Christians of all types and qualities and demeanors and I have found some basic common characteristics in them all.
Even the debate tactics are similar, even though they might exhibit different effects and differences in style.

This turning of the tables, for example, is the most common amongst born-again Christian apologists and fake philosophers and sceintists of the creationist type, and your sudtle usage of the shot at the end of your posts, coupled with the moniker you use, already tells me something about your temperament and your motives.

bang
Oops, that was a premature one.

I look forward to unraveling you like a piece of tightly wrapped shiny paper, promising great riches in the inside, but offering nothing but promises and empty air.

Start by defining the very terms of your propositions such as:

God
Exists
Beyond
Time
Will
Space
Consciousness
Intelligence
Creation/Creativity
Evil/Good
Freedom

Failure to offer even a simplistic and partial definition to each and every of these concepts will only expose you as nothing more than a parrot of auhtority figures with nothing to show but their acceptance and popularity amongst uneducated, fearful and often the superficial masses.

Salutations and do not run away… :-&
I promise to hold back my true opinions concerning your kind and only focus on the subject and your posts.

From there on we can discuss epistemology and how the source of the inforation, as well as its past performaces and the results of its reasoning, participate in choosing what is more likely and what is less likely.

I hope I’ve inspired you to start thinking.

May Apollo watch over you.

BANG
I think I hit something.