Comments on Atheist Propaganda: Theologian says what?

Blake is the star of my new post. http://www.athe...

2010-08-11T14:51:18.323+09:00

Blake is the star of my new post.

http://www.atheistpropaganda.com/2010/08/my-boss-at-work-may-or-may-not-exist.html

I also have to say, this is the worst argument eve...

2010-08-11T12:51:35.824+09:00

I also have to say, this is the worst argument ever.

To claim that something is keeping itself from being proven proves it exists?

I bet he thought he had something special with that argument.

Well, that is absurd. Here are a list of things w...

2010-08-11T12:50:32.361+09:00

Well, that is absurd. Here are a list of things we should believe in, using his thought process as a model.

Unicorns
Wizards
Dragons
Atlantis
The Loch Ness Monster
Fairies
The Bunny Rabbit
Middle Earth
Aliens
Thor
Wonder Woman
Leprechauns
Pixies
Kirk Cameron's 'Crocaduck'
Cinderella

I could go on, but I think we all get the point. There is no proof for any of these things (However, the Loch Ness Monster is winning the 'evidence' portion of our contest with alleged pictures), so perhaps that is why they exist. So we will continue to have faith in them.

Jim, what do you think about the first part of his...

2010-08-11T11:22:08.515+09:00

Jim, what do you think about the first part of his argument?

"Think about it Admin, If God were actually real, and he wanted people to follow righteous ways and believe in his existence how else would he do it? The only way to keep religious faith alive is to provide no worldly evidence for it. The only way for people to believe in something is to place creative stories of supernatural miracles in peoples minds over time and have it put into literature(Bible, Qur'an, etc). Not to always be taken literally, but as an inspiration."

I couldn't believe it (pun?) when I figured out this wasn't a joke! He tells me to think about it...... OK, I thought about it and it's fucking hilarious and downright ridiculous!

Jim, he probably is agnostic, he just doesn't ...

2010-08-11T11:13:33.180+09:00

Jim, he probably is agnostic, he just doesn't know what it is that makes him agnostic. If he believes that we can never know for sure, then he is agnostic. He is also an atheist, I think. Let's let him set us straight.

Allow me to butt in for a second. I think Blake i...

2010-08-11T11:07:00.540+09:00

Allow me to butt in for a second. I think Blake is trying to say he is a Deist. Or at least, that's the best definition for what he claims.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deism

It's ironic that he would tell you (Admin) that you don't know anything about agnosticism, when he in fact doesn't know that he is not agnostic. And we all love a bit of irony, don't we?

"...if you knew anything about the non belief...

2010-08-11T10:56:53.738+09:00

"...if you knew anything about the non belief of religion you would know that is the stance of Agnosticism."

Before you insult people and tell them they don't know what they're talking about, you should check your definitions. It can be embarrassing otherwise, but somehow I don't think I'll get an apology or other admission out of this.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/agnosticism?r=75&src=ref&ch=dic

Blake, can either side prove that leprechauns (sp?...

2010-08-11T10:52:53.858+09:00

Blake, can either side prove that leprechauns (sp?) exist or don't exist? You can't prove the non-existence of something, so you'll have to define yourself as "agnostic" (incorrectly used) for any mythological claim. Have fun with that one. You're a leprechaun agnostic? You're a Flying Spaghetti Monster agnostic. You're a Russell's teapot agnostic. You're a magical pixie agnostic.

No, there is no fence. Agnosticism doesn't me...

2010-08-11T10:50:41.204+09:00

No, there is no fence. Agnosticism doesn't mean what most people think it means. Agnosticism means that you don't believe we can have true knowledge of the existence of something, anything, not just gods

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnosticism

So if I ask you if you BELIEVE that gods exist, and you say you don't know, you are an atheist. I am an agnostic atheist.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnostic_atheism

You think I don't know anything about the non-belief of religion? What does that even mean? That I don't know how to not believe a crazy claim?

Actually Admin there is a fence, and if you knew a...

2010-08-11T10:47:03.877+09:00

Actually Admin there is a fence, and if you knew anything about the non belief of religion you would know that is the stance of Agnosticism.

Think about it Admin, If God were actually real, a...

2010-08-11T10:44:29.125+09:00

Think about it Admin, If God were actually real, and he wanted people to follow righteous ways and believe in his existence how else would he do it? The only way to keep religious faith alive is to provide no worldly evidence for it. The only way for people to believe in something is to place creative stories of supernatural miracles in peoples minds over time and have it put into literature(Bible, Qur'an, etc). Not to always be taken literally, but as an inspiration.

If everyone knew one true God and whatever the finite definition is you are looking for, we wouldn't have the power of choice to believe what we want? If one true god created the universe, wouldn't it be smart of him to create a world where over time there developed a debate between many different religions that all pretty much followed the same theme? All religions help people believe that they have a sense of being. That mass sense of being, purpose and moral grounding is what keeps the world moving forward. Do you think we would've made it this far in science or technology if everyone always believed there was no God? It is essential to human evolution that a majority of people on earth believe in a sense of purpose and afterlife. If there were anything that either proved God or disproved God, What kind of world would that be? There would be chaos. And as for the argument, "if God is so good why does he allow so much suffering?" I say this...we wouldn't have evolved into humans if there weren't finite physical laws that can't be broken or if there were no consequences for actions. Car accidents happen, lethal illnesses exist. They are all forms of population control that are necessary to human existence. We would not be able to operate as a society if we had finite laws of the afterlife or why we are here.

All I'm saying is the debate will be endless because neither side can disprove the other. But you shouldn't try to degrade religious people's argument because of your belief. Neither side knows what the truth is. My stance will be on the fence until the day I die. I am an agnostic. And if there is a creator, I think more people need to at least respect why he made it the way it is.

Blake, there is no fence. This is binary, yes or ...

2010-08-11T09:43:40.581+09:00

Blake, there is no fence. This is binary, yes or no. You either believe that gods exist, or you don't believe that gods exist. There is no middle ground. So, do you currently have a belief that gods exist?

"Think about it Admin, If God were actually r...

2010-08-11T09:40:32.677+09:00

"Think about it Admin, If God were actually real, and he wanted people to follow his gospel and believe in his existence how else would he do it? The only way to keep religious faith alive is to provide no worldly evidence for it. The only way for people to believe in something is to place creative stories of supernatural miracles in peoples minds over time and have it put into literature(Bible, Qur'an, etc). Not to always be taken literally, but as an inspiration."

Blake, when I first read this part, I thought you were joking around and I had a good laugh. It seems like a joke. Then as I got further into your comment, it started to seem like you're not joking. This is why we have Poe's Law, I guess.

"All I'm saying is the debate will be endless because neither side can disprove the other."

I don't have to prove that theists have failed to make their case any more than I have to prove that the Loch Ness monster searchers have not made their case. That's why we have burden of proof. It is not my responsibility to prove anything. I am not making a claim of the existence of something here.

"But you shouldn't try to degrade religious people's argument because of your belief."

No, I have a lack of belief. Do you know what an atheist is? See below, because you are one.

"Neither side knows what the truth is. My stance will be on the fence until the day I die."

Well then, you're a coward. You refuse to admit that you believe or don't believe in gods, and are proud that will stay that way until you die. Die a coward, then. I've got news for you. If you don't have a belief in gods, you are an atheist. That's what an atheist is. I wonder, are you also on the fence about the existence of Santa Claus? Neither side can prove their case, so should I laugh at those adults who think he's real? That's why we have burden of proof.

2010-08-11T08:55:31.244+09:00

This comment has been removed by the author.

A note on the study of prayer. For those who don&...

2009-09-30T20:50:43.770+09:00

A note on the study of prayer.

For those who don't know, the study in question was of recovering heart surgery patients. One group was told they were being prayed for, another was told they might be prayed for. The first group had a slower recovery time with more complications than the non-prayer side. It was concluded that prayer didn't help anyone, and it was a pointless act.

I find it hilarious that the people in the study who knew that they were being prayed for tended to be worse off. It shows me that people tend to just give up hope when they are being prayed for because they think God is going to heal them.

Let's not forget the Templeton studies. They ...

2009-09-07T17:25:27.262+09:00

Let's not forget the Templeton studies.

They did scientifically test prayer - no statistically significant effect.

(BTW Great exchange - getting value for money this morning).

It's funny that these people have created a go...

2009-09-05T08:21:03.912+09:00

It's funny that these people have created a god which supposedly does things like answers prayer, yet says that no test is possible, or that it's outside the realm of science. If there truly was a bring that answered prayers, WE SHOULD BE ABLE TO DETECT IT SCIENTIFICALLY.

The fact that they can't do it is just another huge fail.

But at this point, I'd accept proof of ANYTHING supernatural as a start to their argument. You don't have to prove the existence of gods. Prove to me that ghosts exist, or that ESP works,or psychics are real, ANYTHING AT ALL, FOR THE LOVE OF THEIR FUCKING GOD!

Why have billions of man-hours been spent on these things over human history, yet nobody has ever come up with a proof of even a single one of them?

And why do all of the 'miracles' that their god produces in modern day be in ways that could have happened anyway, naturally? For example, a person survives a car crash, and some god gets the credit. But couldn't they have survived anyway? Their god has the power of magic, so where is the magic? A MIRACLE would be if the person who was about to get into the car crash was instantaneously tele-ported out of their car and to a safe location, while the car crashes and burns without a driver. Why does that kind of thing not happen? Where oh where is the magic?

Jim, I very much disagree that there is no way to ...

2009-09-05T08:02:00.027+09:00

Jim, I very much disagree that there is no way to test for the existence of gods, especially this particular god. t is supposed to interact with this Universe in several ways, and it is those interactions which should be detectable.

Some examples of its supposed interactions would be miracles, power of prayer, protection of its followers, acts of creation, appearing in burning bushes, etc.

If for example we could show that Christian churches always survive natural disasters unharmed, or that people who walk into churches get instantly cured of their diseases, that would be enough to convince me. If Christians lived for 20 years longer than other people, that would be thought-provoking. If a god lifted a falling plane back into the sky without its engines having restarted, that would be interesting. If I prayed for a chocolate bar, and one suddenly appeared in my hand out of thin air, that would be evidence also. If we ask this god to appear on TV at 8:00 tonight to set us straight, and it does, that would definitely do it.

The problem is that not a single one of these things happens. The god which I'm told interacts with this Universe in so many ways, never seems to interact with it at all. THAT is why the god hypothesis fails, in my opinion.

As for Science, well, I have to admit that I need ...

2009-09-05T02:15:30.610+09:00

As for Science, well, I have to admit that I need to restrain myself from using obscenities in my reply.

We all know science exists, it is a class in school, and people are scientists. I fail to see how it doesn't exist. Science is a branch of knowledge. Nothing more. It is amazing that you think they can't prove that a branch of learning cannot exist.

Or do you mean they can't prove the things they learn in science? That would make sense as an argument. Although it is a wrong one. You see, the beautiful thing about science is that it is designed to be able to prove its hypotheses.

Here's how it works. You come up with an hypothesis. You find a way to prove your theory through repeatable experiment and measured results. You test your theory. If, and only if, you are able to reach the conclusion that is your hypothesis through repeatable experiment and are able to measure the results, is that hypothesis proven. Children do this every year in school. It's called a science fair.

Now, when you have a hypothesis about something, say, God. You have to be able to test your theory. Since there is no way to test for the supernatural, we have to call the 'God Theory' a false hypothesis. It has failed every level of the scientific method.

1. No experiment can test for supernatural beings.
2. Since there is no test, it cannot be repeated to try and produce the same results.
3. Since no test exists, we cannot record our results.
4. Due to the fact that we cannot test, reproduce the results, and record our findings, we have to consider the hypothesis failed.

Therefore, no God.

Sorry.

Or is that why science cannot be proven? Because it cannot prove God?

As for your other four things that science cannot ...

2009-09-05T02:15:20.735+09:00

As for your other four things that science cannot prove.

Metaphysical truths
Ethical
Aesthetic Judgements
Science itself

Metaphysical. Do you know what that means? Because if you did, (and I am quite sure you don't), you would know that it means. Because if you did, you would know that, by definition, things that are metaphysical cannot be proven. Here is the definition:

met·a·phys·i·cal (mět'ə-fĭz'ĭ-kəl)
adj.

1. Of or relating to metaphysics.
2. Based on speculative or abstract reasoning.
3. Highly abstract or theoretical; abstruse.
4.
1. Immaterial; incorporeal. See Synonyms at immaterial.
2. Supernatural.

Does that clarify it enough so that I do not have to argue farther? I should hope so. (Note that it describes immaterial and then supernatural. Hmm...)

Next up, Ethical.

I don't know what you want. Scientific proof that people are ethical, or that ethics exist. Well, we know ethics exists. It is used everyday and is even a subject in most colleges. Do you mean the origin of ethics? Not sure. I'll assume you mean we don't know where the origin came from, because that is the something we don't know. Religion can hardly prove it either. I don't remember the passage in the Bible that read, "And God created ethics". But it is known that to have a society with any kind of growth, ethics, or morals, is a necessary part. Otherwise people could freely do what they wished. This is best defined as laws.

Aesthetic Judgments. You want to prove that people can find things beautiful, or the origin. Again, you don't clarify. We know that people find things beautiful, but that doesn't mean anything. Scientists believe that this comes form an ancient sense of self preservation. That is, if something were good looking, it would not be harmful. This is why we associate fire and sharp objects with pain. Have you ever noticed how things that can possibly hurt you are generally not aesthetically pleasing? As for beauty in other people, this comes from a need for reproduction. We look for attractive mates because we see hidden qualities for carrying on our genes. If a woman has wide hips, we see it as a sign of being able to withstand childbirth easier. If a man is tall and strong, women see this as a sign of power, and strength, excellent qualities for survival. In our day and age, most of these qualities are trivial, seeing as we are able to survive quite easily thanks to modern technology. But they were essential traits when we were still uncivilized.

These traits can also bee seen in other animals. Most animals tend to mate based on which is the best suited mate. Animals will compete to show which is stronger, faster, etc. just to win the chance to carry on its genes to the next generation.

So I think aesthetics has been proven.

I find it amazing that you would even begin to arg...

2009-09-05T00:06:03.467+09:00

I find it amazing that you would even begin to argue that science has not proved logic and math. The audacity of this claim leaves me speechless. But let's give it a try.

What does one plus one equal?

If you are right that science has not proved math, there is no way that I could solve this problem. But the logical reasoning would follow the lines that if I added the number one to another number one, the answer would be double itself, represented in the number two. Let's check the math to prove our logic.

1+1=2

Hey, what do you know? It worked. I have proved my logic correct, and my math worked out. I know that my math worked because I can deconstruct the problem in several ways and get the answers that would logically be expected.

Some examples:

2-1=1
2/2=1

Look at that, my math really does work. Now, I can give an infinite number of examples of math working as it logically should, and I can deconstruct those examples to prove the math. This is how we know math works.

I know you might like to argue that this only shows simple addition and division works, but you clearly stated that science has not proved that math and logic work. I just did. Quite easily, I might add.

And if you took a physics class, I assume you had to have taken numerous math classes before you ascended to that level of math, so I ask you, how were you able to pass all the tests to get there if math and logic could not be proven?

This doesn't even begin to show that without math that works 100% every time, without fail (except through human error, which by no means does it mean that math or logic failed), and the logic to support it must pass the same trials. There is a way the scientific community likes to label these ideas that are infallible: Laws.

Mathematical Law is what we base our entire civilization on. Remember when your teacher said you would need to know math because you would need it no matter what job you did? And you tried to point out random jobs that wouldn't need it? But she always had the answers? It would seem odd that a world (and universe) that is so ingrained with math (and the need to know and understand it), to work would base it's entire being on something that is just hearsay and conjecture.

I like to point out to religious types a favorite quote of mine. It is especially useful when they say that math and science are needless entities.

"Math is the language, with which, God has written the universe."
-Galileo

Obviously this was written by a man who believed in God, and religious people would use that to support God. But Galileo was using it to support math. He is saying that if there was a God (which there is no proof anywhere), then he would have had to have used math to create the universe. That is how infused it is with our being. There is no other way for life to exist other than to have math be fool-proof.

I just want you to know that I haven't read yo...

2009-09-04T16:20:53.574+09:00

I just want you to know that I haven't read your latest reply. You've had enough of a chance to make your case, and you've failed. You've wasted enough of my time. You also managed to make the 'philosophical community' look like a bunch of clowns in the process.

And in the end, you never did properly address the point of the original post you replied to, which was to provide reasons that your supernatural claims are real, in the face of contradictory supernatural claims; to differentiate your claims from those of other religions.

Why don't you discuss it with your imaginary friend, instead of with me? Please?

The five points that I provided are not meant to &...

2009-09-04T16:09:51.941+09:00

The five points that I provided are not meant to 'prove' God exists. I was simply refuting your idea that science is all knowing and can explain everything. It can't.

What does that Dawkins quote have anything to do with anything?

Just to let you know, if you're a fan of Dawkins, The God Delusion is a philosophical book! So don't go around insulting philosophy then go and read a book that is philosophy!.

Also, my initial comment wasn't even philosophical! It was historical.

Buddy, you're just an adult with an imaginary ...

2009-09-04T15:57:51.653+09:00

Buddy, you're just an adult with an imaginary friend that he can't demonstrate exists. When you can, I'll eat humble pie. but until then, you're out of your fucking mind, as far as I'm concerned. It must just KILL you that you're unable to demonstrate your friend exists. Don't you wonder about that?

Anyways, don't let the door hit you ..... you know.

Holy crap, how much of your essay did you want me ...

2009-09-04T15:53:03.982+09:00

Holy crap, how much of your essay did you want me to mention? The 5 things science can't prove? Too bad your god doesn't fit into any of those categories, as it is a supposed being that exists.

I'm reminded of a Dawkins quote form when a Christian told him, "(my) god exists outside of time". Dawkins replied, "Well if you find that kind of thing convincing, you're welcome."

So if you find the arguments of a bunch of people who stare at old texts as proof of the supernatural, even when you admit those people won't acknowledge ideas that are correct, then you're welcome. How fitting that you've decided to end the conversation. I decided on my walk 5 minutes ago that I have no more time for this line of reasoning. Don't peddle that argument here and expect it to be replied to with anything other than ridicule.

By the way, you didn't exactly paint a respect-worthy picture of the philosophical community, community in your argument. Your argument, in fact, caused me to LOSE respect for them!