Some atheists are so angered at the mere expression of ordinary beliefs that they can't contain themselves. This doesn't apply to all atheists, so in this article I'll just be talking about this one certain type, the Dawkamentalists. For example in response to my statement "don't let atheists steal your faith" Arizona Atheist throws a tantrum:
Faith is bullshit. Your claiming it's "complex" does nothing to solve your problem. Theists have no evidence for their beliefs and that's that. All "arguments" are simply "god of the gaps" arguments and nothing more. Due to the tremendous lack of proof/evidence for all theistic claims it's all based on "blind faith." So, yes Loftus is correct. Faith is nonsense.
I think it's ridiculous that anyone older than fourteen can't allow others to express their views without a hissy fit. That's exactly what this is, crying, pouting shouting "how dare you disagree with my ideology.!"
Let's just take this statement apart:
Faith is bullshit. Your claiming it's "complex" does nothing to solve your problem.So what problem is that? Why is it necessary for him to say this? Does he provide any sort of logical analysis? no he's merely venting. Does he offer scientific data to back up his irrational emotive assertions? no.
Theists have no evidence for their beliefs and that's that.Not at all. We don't have any! So if we actually then he's wrong isn't he? How does one expalin my 42 arguments? that's some! he may disagree with them, but it's some. not an an absence of any at all.
Read them ignorant little puddle duck. read them and tell they are just stupid. show me why. Name the law of logic they violate! They never do. Not one of the little hate mongers has ever named a single law of logic that arguments violate.
All "arguments" are simply "god of the gaps" arguments and nothing more.I really doubt that this guy even knows what the phrase "God of gaps" means. He is insisting that all God arguments are G of G. But he can't prove to anyone that even of mine is. No one can because they are not. I am willing to let him try. If fact if he can prove to a rational nuetral person that any of argumetns are God of gaps I'll take this blog down.
God of the gaps means the arguments turn upon a gap in knowledge. It means nothing more than that. A God of the gaps argument is not necessarily illogical. Its' not a rule of logic that you can't base an argument on a gap. It's not very smart to do it, but there is a law of logic that says you can't. Nevertheless none of mine are. Now we have to be clear what a gap is and what it is not. A gap is not a logical problem which be solved. That's the answer to any charge of G of G. If you can show a gap based upon not merely a dirth of knowing but upon a logical problem something that can't be resolved with an explanation of naturalism then there is no God of the gaps. None of my arguments rest upon merely not knowing, they all rest upon problems with a naturalistic solution.
Let's go through the first 10 and I'll give examples:
1.Argument from Cosmological Necessity
this does not turn upon merely not knowing something, it turns upon the concepts of ontological necessity and contingency. Thus it takes more than just filling in a gap to solve the argument. All naturalistic phenomena are contingent, but you can't have contingency without a necessity. That means here has to be some sort of eternal necessity at the level of being itself, that means God.
2.Everything Has to have a ReasonNEW!
That is not merely a gap in knowing, it's a logical problem because there is no reason for there pure accent that a totally naturalistic universe would be.
3. Fire in the Equations
Where do the laws of physics come from. Atheists typical mistake this for gap. It's more than a gap, it's logical barrier to an naturalistic explanation.
4. Anthropic Principle (2 Pages)
Doesn't Doesn't turn on merely not knowing something. It turns upon the improbability of the universe to bear life. There's nothing in this that's a mere gap in knowledge, we understand it quite well.
5. From Religious Instinct (3 pages)
There's no gap in knowledge here. The vast majority of people who have ever lived have believed in god in some sense. That indicates genetic basis because it's universal to the species. There no gap involved.
6. From Religious a priori
How could an a priori argument turn upon a gap in knowledge? The only way you can have a god of the gaps argument is if you have a gap in knowledge. That means it has to be an empirical argument which is inductive. An a priori argument is deductive. It is not based upon empirical data. So it can't have a gap in knowledge at the crux of the argument. So no a prori ;God arguments can ever god of the gaps arguments.
7. From Mystical experience, (3 pages)
Doesn't turn upon not knowing, it's justification argument for rational warrant so it cant' be a god of gaps arguments. it's based the positive knowledge about the effects of religious experience. It's not based upon a gap.
8. Thomas Reid Argument, (2 pages)
Based upon what we do know not what we don't know so it can't be God of the gaps.
9. Argument from the Sublime
based upon positiave knowledge
based upon positive knowledge and phenomenology.
Just because an argument contains a gap in knowledge doesn't mean it's a god of the gaps argument. the entire argument itself, the pay off, the punch line, the point upon which it turns, has to be based upon that gap in knowledge and that means upon not knowing. Arguments that turn on logic or upon what we do know can't be God of the gaps arguments. Arguments based upon logical flaws in naturism can't be god of the gaps arguments.
AA goes on to whine:
Due to the tremendous lack of proof/evidence for all theistic claims it's all based on "blind faith."Of course I just disproved that because none of my arguments are based upon blind faith. But more improtantly, I agued that faith is not belief without evidence, we have evidence. Just becuase childish people have not intelligence or training to understand logic or get the ponit of argument doesn't mean the argument is not good. Atheists are always saying stupid childish arrogant things like this and they are always stupid because they have to ignore gobs of material that is simpley away over their heads.
So, yes Loftus is correct. Faith is nonsense.
But of course he's ignoring my statement that faith is complex because it is made up of many parts: belief, faithfulness, loyalty and so on> I prove that by the definition from the dictionary. I argue that faith is placing confidence ein a proposition, so it has nothing to do with blind faith (faith is blind faith, that's defining the word with the word). Of course he ignores that like most atheists who are hateful enough to while like this and vent their ignorance. There's no evidence at all not a single big. When they start saying that we know they have never read the major thinkers.