Monday, March 16, 2009

why do they do it?

The Childish Arizona Atheist tries to respond, but is unable to muster a single refutation of any argument I linked to. He gives us nothing specific to deal with, only his constant whining demand that he as to be right just because he is. That's hate. He's merely demonstrating that he is full of hate, he doesn't know why. He can't mount a rational argument for his view point.



Anyone over the age of 8 should be able to see where your tremendous error is.

Funny you can't. Name the rule of logic that i violate? give me any kind of specifics that we can nail down. you don't.


Your ridicule of that very reasonable picture (and my comment) demonstrates your ignorance and, yes, stupidity.

Name calling and ridicule that's all he's got. Does he do anything more than this? He does not. No arguments, no analysis. Just whining.


The very fact that you conjure up something, a particular god, to explain something in effect doesn't explain anything because your god is also in need of an explanation! I also wouldn't call your beliefs "ordinary."
Yea I made up God. Like belief hasn't been around for 65,000 years. But the reason they thinks I made up liberal theology is because he's an idiot. He doesn't know anything about theology, he's never heard of liberal theology so he thinks I made it up just to get out of a bind. But the only bind he offers is whining.



Your beliefs only make up one out of many branches of what is called christianity, and that's not even mentioning all the other religious beliefs, both the theist and atheistic religions (ie. religions that contain no gods). And yes, faith is bullshit. And, by the way, all your arguments are either illogical or nothing more than 'god of the gaps' crap. I feel no need to elaborate. I've written about your errors extensively and don't feel like rehashing it.

He uses name calling to insult my argument but he doesn't actually argue against them. Saying "your arguments are illogical," is not an argument. why is it illogical? name the rule of logic that violates. Do you even know what logic has rules? Do you even know that it has it's own special langauge? Do you know one word of that lagnaue? I doubt it. He speaks of Chrsitainity as "taht which call" to sound impressive becuase he has nothing to say.

what is the basis for this kind of knee jerk non thinking other than hate? It has to be pure demonanic hate becasue hey can't put two sentence together to make an analytical statment.

The very illogical nature of your claims are so mind numbingly silly I don't even see why I'm replying.

then why the hell are you? If they are so silly and so illgoical why can't you give me a single reason why they are? Hmmmmm? can' you just stop whining that must be right no matter what long enough to actually give it some thought? Not that I mean to start your brain hurting.


My "ideology"??? Sorry, but I have none, and yes a 'god of the gaps argument' is in fact a non-argument.

I went though 10 of my arugments and showed why they are not God of the gaps arguments. I don't see a sinlge coutner reason that you offer. You are not saying anyting little one. You are just whining. You say you don't have an ideology, I'm sure that is over heard anyway, but obviously you do. You are totally filled with rage because I believe in God and you can't even tell me why you don't like it?


I've run across this nonsense before but your little brain can't seem to comprehend why that "answer" isn't really an answer at all. Simply put, your "answer" (the christian god) has never been proven so cannot be relied upon as the answer.




Not only did I show why it can't be proved the way you want it to be (empirical scientific evidence) and why its unfair to expect that, but I also gave 1o reasons why is rational to believe in it. I don't see a single concept refuting any of that. All you do is whine, "I have to be right! I want to be right! I must be!" why? you don't even know do you? Do you even know why you hate belief in God? Do you even have an idea you can put into words? Please don't say "it's stupid." that's not a reason! that's an insult it'sn ot an argument.

It's so funny to read someone who believes in the absurd things as you do (a dead man rising from the dead after being dead as a doornail for 3 days, virgin birth, etc.) talk about logic (something you clearly know nothing of). Priceless! Thanks for that bit of humor. You should be a comedian.


why? can you give me a single reason? I think anyone with any real brains can see this is the ideology at work. he's just foaming at the mouth become someone dares to believe in God but he can't formulate a single sentence to tell us what's wrong with it.

I gave 10 reasons to believe in God. Now if you believe in God, then you have to accept that God can create universes and the whole multiverse, that God is not just the creator but the basis of all that is. If that is the case why can't he raise someone from the dead? He invented death, he invented life, he gave life to all that is living, why can't he raise someone form the dead? Moreover, we find examples where people come back to life from death. It happens a lot in fact. You can't give me a reason not to believe in God. So once believing why isn't resurrection possible? In fact I knew a man in real life who was dead for three days and came back to life. I talk about him in my list of God arguments (NDE).

As for virgin birth, that s scientifically possible even in a naturalistic setting (but the offspring has to be female). Again, once you are the basis of all that is and you can do anything that is logically coherent, why can't you do that? It's just genetic engineering. We can do in laboratories.


"logic, something you know nothing of." So how is it that you can't mention a single rule of logic? why can't you tell me any rule of logic that my arguments violate? God of the gaps is not a rule of logic, it's an analysis of certain kind of argument that is not even illogical in and of itself. The problem with a God of the gaps argument is not that it violates logic but that it doesn't tell us anything. However, none of my arguments are g of g and I showed you why they are not.

let's have it, show me a law of logic that I violate.


I can understand why people don't believe. I was an atheist. I can understand that. But what I can't understand is why they are so angry about it. What is it about the fact that I believe something they don't buy that makes them so angry? why get angry about other people's beliefs? This guy is sheathing with hatred. why? He doesn't believe that he has an ideology but the mere fact of disagreement and he's foaming at the mouth. That's ideological.

10 comments:

Arizona Atheist said...

Why should I bother with every single point? I've written about them before and don't want to rehash all this nonsense (it was painful enough writing about it the first time; debunking arguments that have such large holes in them, anyone with an ounce of logic could see right through them. I could compare it to trying to convince someone that the sky is blue right now. It's just obvious, just as it's obvious that all these arguments are nothing more than "god of the gaps" claims). Each of your arguments, as I explained, are 'god of the gaps' arguments, which prove nothing (which is the very short version of my arguments minus all the explanation). Because you have never proven your god, your 'god of the gap' arguments therefore also solve nothing. Because of your lack of logical ability it's easy to understand why you responded the way you did. You can't wrap your mind around such a logical concept because the way you view the world is illogical. Maybe you should ask yourself that? Why do you do it? Why do you spend hours writing this garbage that's easily refuted, and illogical, when there are no facts that help your case? These gaps are closing. Soon enough there will be no more room for your god to hide. What will you do when that happens?

Since your entire reply was just silly I'll just respond to one thing. I'll show you a "law of logic" you violate....

It's called argumentum ad ignorantiam, or "argument from ignorance" which is what each of your reasons for belief are. You don't understand how nature crafted our morality, so you think god did it; you want to believe god created the universe instead of think critically about the fact that even if it's found that the universe did have a beginning (which is debatable), that's no proof of any god, and a christian is still in a precarious position because how can they prove it was their god that did it? There are other gods that are in the running; other gods of creation, according to other creation myths. You want to claim that "mystical" experiences are proof, but there is much evidence that all these are explained through natural processes and events occurring in the brain. Once again, not that any of this will do any good. You will no doubt view it as "whining" when I'm trying to talk some sense into you, which I think is a lost cause.

From your hate speech of saying how atheists should all be killed, and we're all like nazis, I honestly think you're the pot calling the kettle black and your bigotry is blinding you. Your bigotry is also apparent with your absurd accusation of hatred. I do not hate you. I just think you're completely illogical and silly. I do not hate you; I wish you no harm...unlike you apparently, since you wish I was dead, only because I am an atheist.

Arizona Atheist said...

I thought I'd point out one last silly thing you say:

"As for virgin birth, that s scientifically possible even in a naturalistic setting (but the offspring has to be female)"

First of all Mary is supposed to have been a human being. Humans are not a species that are asexual, so your argument that "virgin births" occur in nature is silly. Show me one case of a true virgin giving birth in the medical literature, without ever having a man's sperm enter her.

J.L. Hinman said...

no little know nothing. I learned in college (000000. you never been to college have you?) that it is possible for a human woman to have a vigin birth. Of course it would be extremely rare. You would probably never see one in your whole life time. But biolgists say it is possible.

but the offspring would have to be a girl.

you are just don't know anything stupid. you are an illiterate unread unlearned fool. you think you begin an atheist makes you intellectual and it doesn't. it make you a know nothing.

J.L. Hinman said...

SLATE


"Are natural human virgin births possible?
Print This ArticlePRINTDiscuss in the FrayDISCUSSEmail to a FriendE-MAILGet Slate RSS FeedsRSSShare This ArticleRECOMMEND...Single PageSINGLE PAGE
Yahoo! BuzzFacebook FacebookPost to MySpace!MySpaceMixx MixxDigg DiggReddit RedditDel.icio.us del.icio.usFurl FurlMa.gnolia.com Ma.gnoliaSphere SphereStumble UponStumbleUponCLOSE

Yes, in theory. However, a number of rare events would have to occur in close succession, and the chances of these all happening in real life are virtually zero. For a virgin to get pregnant, one of her eggs would have to produce, on its own, the biochemical changes indicative of fertilization, and then divide abnormally to compensate for the lack of sperm DNA. That's the easy part: These two events occur in the eggs or egg precursor cells of one out of every few thousand women. But the egg would also need to be carrying at least two specific genetic deletions to produce a viable offspring.

An egg will only start dividing once it senses a spike in cellular calcium. This normally occurs as a result of a sperm's entry during fertilization. But if the egg happens to experience a spontaneous calcium spike, it will start reacting as if it's been fertilized. A defective sperm that lacks DNA can produce a spurious calcium spike. In the lab, scientists can coax unfertilized eggs into beginning the post-fertilization process by simply injecting them with calcium."

J.L. Hinman said...

of course you missed the premise that if God can create all that is then he could surely manipulate genes.

J.L. Hinman said...

Why should I bother with every single point?

you haven't answered one. You haven't given a single argument. all you did was call names. you didn't say anything of any substance.


I've written about them before and don't want to rehash all this nonsense (it was painful enough writing about it the first time; debunking arguments that have such large holes in them, anyone with an ounce of logic could see right through them.

when you wrote abotu it before you din't deal with the logic or make an argument. All you ever ddi was call names and say bold stupid things without substance.


I could compare it to trying to convince someone that the sky is blue right now. It's just obvious, just as it's obvious that all these arguments are nothing more than "god of the gaps" claims).

that's not an argument. Here's this guy who cliams that I'm so illogical and all he can do is argue from analogy and then doesn't understand that that is a logical fallacy.

the sky is not blue, and in fact there is no sky. the sky an illusion because ti's really outer space and it's reflecting blue bu it's dark and limitless.

you want to believe that atheism is as logic as the sky being blue but you can't you can't make a logical argument to prove your position.




Each of your arguments, as I explained, are 'god of the gaps' arguments,


I explained why they are not. I went through 10 of them and explain how each one was not. you did not answer that. you have nothing to refute it. you have probably convened yourself that you did.

you did not. you did not say a world about any of the reasons I gave.



which prove nothing (which is the very short version of my arguments minus all the explanation). Because you have never proven your god, your 'god of the gap' arguments therefore also solve nothing.

Instead of proving it I explained why it can't be proved and why it's stupid to demand proof. All you have done is repeat your original stupidity.

you have not said anything logical. I think it's abundantly clearly you don't know what logic is.



Because of your lack of logical ability it's easy to understand why you responded the way you did. You can't wrap your mind around such a logical concept because the way you view the world is illogical.


if that's true then why can't you tell me a logical arguemnt? why can't say "this violate the law of excluded middle?" or something like that? why can't you make a logical argument?

do you really think your whining and childish name calling is actually logical argument? It's not. stop begin a child. its' not argument. you are making a fool of yourself.



Maybe you should ask yourself that? Why do you do it? Why do you spend hours writing this garbage that's easily refuted, and illogical, when there are no facts that help your case? These gaps are closing. Soon enough there will be no more room for your god to hide. What will you do when that happens?


then why can't you make an argument? when are you going to start? If it 's so illogical and you understand logic so well why can't you make a logical argument?

Since your entire reply was just silly I'll just respond to one thing. I'll show you a "law of logic" you violate....


so goring through each arguemnt and showing why it's not a certain fallacy is silly, and just calling names and not making an argument is smart?

It's called argumentum ad ignorantiam, or "argument from ignorance" which is what each of your reasons for belief are.

that's not what it means. That does not mean that anytime you disagree with something it's automatically an argument from ignorance.

show me why it's ignorant? IF you think its' so well proven show me what's obvious and why argument is ignorant? do that using the rules of logic, not whining and asserting that it has to be true because you think so. prove that it is.

btw that is not a law of logic. it's not the way ti works.




You don't understand how nature crafted our morality, so you think god did it;


why don't you show me that? prove that nature crafted morality, show me how it did it?

how do you square that with Hume's fork? Why did Hume say "you can't derive an ought from an is? If you think morality is in nature that would make ought an is, so show me how Hume is wrong.



you want to believe god created the universe instead of think critically about the fact that even if it's found that the universe did have a beginning (which is debatable), that's no proof of any god,

why wouldn't it be? show me a reason. shop sniveling and make an argument.



and a christian is still in a precarious position because how can they prove it was their god that did it? There are other gods that are in the running;


No that shows a totall lack of understanding of any concept of God at all. All Gods point to God. Any asseuty is automatically all aseautiy. It's logically necessary that this is the case. It's not logically possible to be otherwise because God is not content and he's nto an individual. There can only be one ground of being, that's exactly I've always aid and it just proves that you never understand the idea to begin with.



other gods of creation, according to other creation myths. You want to claim that "mystical"

No you don't get it. there can only be one ground of being.It's not an idivudal. The big guys in the skies of mytholgoies are only metaphors. they all stand for the one ground of being that is reality behind them all. So your argument is moot nonsense.

and it doesn't prove atheism because you are still arguing for a God. it's just showing how deeply you hate Christianity. I wonder if you know why you do.



experiences are proof, but there is much evidence that all these are explained through natural processes and events occurring in the brain.

nope, there is no such proof. IN fact I've disproved it.

Once again, not that any of this will do any good. You will no doubt view it as "whining" when I'm trying to talk some sense into you, which I think is a lost cause.


what you said so far is nonsense and its not based upon logic. you are not making arguments with logic you are making empirical arguments. too bad you don't know the difference. I would think a big expert on logic like you would understand that.

the arguments you make here are wrongheaded because you don't understand the ideas you argue against.


From your hate speech of saying how atheists should all be killed, and we're all like nazis, I honestly think you're the pot calling the kettle black and your bigotry is blinding you.


I never said atheists should be killed. you prove you are like a Nazi because you don't know why you are so deeply filled with hate. but clearly you are.


Your bigotry is also apparent with your absurd accusation of hatred. I do not hate you. I just think you're completely illogical and silly. I do not hate you; I wish you no harm...unlike you apparently, since you wish I was dead, only because I am an atheist.


you clearly don't know shit from shinola. you are obviously filled with hate because you so angry and alarmed because saying things you don't understand that makes you furious.
March 16, 2009 10:08 AM

Arizona Atheist said...

"I never said atheists should be killed. you prove you are like a Nazi because you don't know why you are so deeply filled with hate. but clearly you are."

That's what I've been told, but I do know for a fact you have claimed to want atheist banned by law. If that's not hated I don't know what is. And you call me hateful?? Hypocrite.

Yes, I've seen that Slate article, but even it says it's so unlikely as to be completely unintelligible. Even if that did happen it would mean it was not any form of miracle, and thus would take it out of the special status it has.

Plus I asked for an example of it happening in the medical liteature, which you failed to provide.

Why should I bother destroying your arguments when, as I've said already, they're non-arguments? They are "god of the gaps" answers which do nothing to answer the questions they seek to answer. First, you must prove your god exists before they can be given for as a logical answer and this you haven't been able to do.

And as usual instead of presenting any evidence for your god you turn to your childish and pathetic insults.

"the sky is not blue, and in fact there is no sky. the sky an illusion because ti's really outer space and it's reflecting blue bu it's dark and limitless."

Yes, but that is my point. Our perception of the sky is blue (at least at the time I was writing if you were looking at it with me, which is what I was referring to). You completely missed my point.

Sorry, but they're still "gap" arguments and that's that. Plus, you still haven't ever even shown how it was your god that was responsible for all these "laws" and whatnot to begin with. You assume it is the one you believe in.

"No that shows a totall lack of understanding of any concept of God at all. All Gods point to God. "

That makes no sense... It's simply a rationalization for the fact that there are multiple gods that you must contend with (or ignore).

"why don't you show me that? prove that nature crafted morality, show me how it did it?"

How? Not that it would ever convince a close-midned imbesil as yourself, but I suggest reading Robert Wright's "Moral Animal" and Frans de Waal's "Primates and Philosophers."

With your lack of scientific knowledge and logical thinking ability I find it amusing you're the one telling me I know nothing. Crack open some science books once in a while and actually learn something. Humans are social animals and as such, natural selection has crafted an innate morality of sorts. I've provided you with sources for the evidence.

"you clearly don't know shit from shinola. you are obviously filled with hate because you so angry and alarmed because saying things you don't understand that makes you furious."

On the contrary, you seem to simply be projecting your attitudes onto me, since I'm not angry at all. I think you should tell yourself that.

I have given logical arguments about why your god didn't create the universe, but you ignore said logic and resort to name calling. You also never showed why your arguments were not "gap" arguments. This would be impossible to demonstrate anyway because all arguments for god are nothing more than god of the gap arguments.

J.L. Hinman said...

"I never said atheists should be killed. you prove you are like a Nazi because you don't know why you are so deeply filled with hate. but clearly you are."

That's what I've been told, but I do know for a fact you have claimed to want atheist banned by law. If that's not hated I don't know what is. And you call me hateful?? Hypocrite.

I never said that either. It looks you are willing to believe wild rumors and you don't check out the facts very well.

Yes, I've seen that Slate article, but even it says it's so unlikely as to be completely unintelligible. Even if that did happen it would mean it was not any form of miracle, and thus would take it out of the special status it has.


you don't get the drift. You are missing the point. the point is you made out like v birth is so stupid only an idiot would beleive it. I was saying it's not even impossible. of course it's total improbable. If it did happen, it had to God doing it because it probably wouldn't happen on its own. But if there is a God then why is it a stretch to think he could do that?

since its not impossible it's not all that stupid.


Plus I asked for an example of it happening in the medical liteature, which you failed to provide.

Jesus

Why should I bother destroying your arguments when, as I've said already, they're non-arguments?

but since you can't disprove them by logic you have no reason to think so, duh!


They are "god of the gaps" answers which do nothing to answer the questions they seek to answer.

I have already demonstrated that they are not. I don't think you know what god of the gaps means.

First, you must prove your god exists before they can be given for as a logical answer and this you haven't been able to do.


Nope I don't! I only have to prove it if I want you to believe it.If I don't care what you believe then why should I prove it?

since I've already explained the circumstances under which God can be proved (deductive argument) and why it can't proved by empirical data, then it's silly to keep demanding that. until you deal with that reality you are not saying anything. you are repeating a position I've proven to be stupid.


And as usual instead of presenting any evidence for your god you turn to your childish and pathetic insults.


That is really slow on the uptake.

are you so unthinking that you can't see tat when I presented the 10 arguments to show that they are not God of the gaps, that's the evidence? you haven't answered any of them yet.


"the sky is not blue, and in fact there is no sky. the sky an illusion because ti's really outer space and it's reflecting blue bu it's dark and limitless."

Yes, but that is my point. Our perception of the sky is blue (at least at the time I was writing if you were looking at it with me, which is what I was referring to). You completely missed my point.


you missed my point. what you think is so obvious is beyond your understanding because you only look at the surface.

Sorry, but they're still "gap" arguments and that's that.

No. that's not an answer. I showed how for each one none of them actually turn on a gap in knowledge. There may be gaps in knowledge in the arguments, but the arguemnt itself doesn't turn on that gap. it turns on a logical difficulty with a naturalistic position.

for example take the temporal beginning argument. The gap is we don't know how time began. But the argument doesn't rest just on not knowing that, it rests on the logical problem that it's a total contradiction to think that time could begin in a timeless where no change change can take place.

all the arguments are like that. none of them turn on just NOT knowing soemthing. they all turn a a logical problem in the naturalistic position.



Plus, you still haven't ever even shown how it was your god that was responsible for all these "laws" and whatnot to begin with. You assume it is the one you believe in.


I know this way over your head. In fact I don't believe you have the intelligence to ever understand it. But I'll try agian:

I am saying that there is no My God and theri God. There is only one God. All the gods in all the different religions are just metaphors or symbols that point to this one God.

I am also saying that this is the only God can there can be. This is because he's not a man on throne he not an individual person but he is actually reality itself, the basis of all that is. There can only be one, logically, so there can't be a question of is it this God or that God there can only be this one God. that's all there can be so it has to be this God, which is actually being itself.

when I say any aseity is all aseity that means there can only be one thing that is the eternal necessary basis of all that is..that's what God is. So there is only one to choose from.


"No that shows a totall lack of understanding of any concept of God at all. All Gods point to God. "

That makes no sense... It's simply a rationalization for the fact that there are multiple gods that you must contend with (or ignore).


No it's deductive reasoning. It's an argument for God based upon the deductive argument from necessity.

"why don't you show me that? prove that nature crafted morality, show me how it did it?"

How? Not that it would ever convince a close-midned imbesil as yourself, but I suggest reading Robert Wright's "Moral Animal" and Frans de Waal's "Primates and Philosophers."

there is no proof for genes of morality. That's a lie. Moreover, morality requires an ought. an is can never furnish and ought. that is what the atheist Hume proved. understand? It's called Humes fork and if you knew shit about logic you would know this is a rule of logic! It cannot be. there cannot e an ought from an is. that means a gene for certain behavior cannot supply what is needed to make it moral.

the problem is you are an idiot. you are too stupid and too uneducated to understand anything bout moral philosophy. You don't have the education to understand it.


With your lack of scientific knowledge and logical thinking ability I find it amusing you're the one telling me I know nothing.


I know more about science than you do. in fact you are an idiot. yo don't know much and your far less abotu science than you think you do. you are a fool. you dnot' know anything you are alittle ildiot.

I am a Ph.D. student. I studied history science in Doctoral level. you don't know shit from shinola about science. You don't know logic you can't make an argument.

you are an idiot. you ar littlle waste of sapcer loser who is only do this to feel supiror. did mommy break up with daddy? ddi daddy slap you around? you are trying to vent your anger on people who are above you. you are inferior to me and to all thinking people.

you are a little waste of space loser trying to make yourself feel ike big shot because you put down people who your loser friends in the skin head group tell you are not cool. christians are cool we put them down to feel Superior just proper little skin head.

that's all you are about. you are putting down people and things you don't understand to make yourself feel special.




Crack open some science books once in a while and actually learn something. Humans are social animals and as such, natural selection has crafted an innate morality of sorts. I've provided you with sources for the evidence.

that make him a big man? that make you feel real tall hu? listen little one I was a sociology major. I know far more about social sciences than you ever will..

you don't know science. you don't anything about it. you don't know logic. you don't shit from shinola.

J.L. Hinman said...

I have given logical arguments about why your god didn't create the universe, but you ignore said logic and resort to name calling. You also never showed why your arguments were not "gap" arguments. This would be impossible to demonstrate anyway because all arguments for god are nothing more than god of the gap arguments.


where? the only attempat you've made at logic is to fall for the fallacy of arguing from analogy and try to make the god of the gaps argument. But I showed in 10 cases how none of them are you have not answered a single argumet I made.

what grade are you in? you in highschool? I would guess middle school? madey sixth grade?

you are a childish little wart trying to make yourself feel big because you know you are a loser.

you are clearly not prepared to make a logical argument and you are just venting hatred because you have no other to feel speical. you put down people and things you don't understand becaues it makes you feel powerful.

you need to find more productive ways to feel empowered because this can only lead to frustration and bitterness.

You are only making a fool of yourself. you are only showing your ignorance.

Arizona Atheist said...

Joe, Joe, Joe....

The very fact that your god has never been proven puts the burden of proof squarely on you to prove its existence. Your continuing insults and ignorance is pitiful, really.

"that make him a big man? that make you feel real tall hu? listen little one I was a sociology major. I know far more about social sciences than you ever will.."

If I actually attempted to study that subject in depth maybe you'd know more, maybe not, but that has nothing to do with the topic of natural selection and innate morality. Clearly, if anyone is trying to act like a "big man" it's you.

"there is no proof for genes of morality. That's a lie"

Very good, precise scientific argument. Where did you learn it? One of those many discredited christian diploma mills? Like I said, you badly need to read up on the subject.

"I never said that either. It looks you are willing to believe wild rumors and you don't check out the facts very well."

: ) Funny stuff. I know that's a lie. I have proof, but you go ahead and say you didn't. Bigot.

Old (not to mention hateful and bigoted) man with your ever increasing anger in your replies I think it's time for your nap.

Well, it's been uneducational, but interesting. Like I said, you might want to crack open a few books and learn more before you make yourself look silly again.