Tuesday, February 8, 2011

Atheist Incredulity

Photobucket

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


10.Existential Argument.

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.

12 comments:

Jeeprs said...

I feel for you. I have been arguing for a kind of 'pan-spiritual' approach for the last 2 years on a philosophy forum. I cop a lot of heat from atheists. I think their hatred is actually pathological. But it doesn't do a lot of good aggravating them. I feel guilty sometimes, I should leave them alone. Anyway, I generally agree with where you're coming from, but careful not to let it consume you.

Metacrock said...

hey thanks man. I know you are right.

Toff said...

...and the usual attack on atheists. You keep complaining about atheists being a 'hate group', yet it's you who is constantly insulting and belittling them. It's not atheists who are doing the hating. And, of course, you won't publish this, just like you didn't publish my other posts which are actually critical of you.

And you actually wonder why you are losing your readers?

Metacrock said...

Toff: Those are foolish comments. First becasue you are assuming that exposing hatred is hateful. Its' not hateful for me to expose their hatred. Like most of them always you completly excuse what they have done to me and just assume "them vs us, they are bad we are good." you are brain washed.

Secondly, you are totally the hatred that I have demonstrated over and over again, then you are blaming the victim and confusing anger with hate.

Probably like most of them you don't give a damn what's true as long as your side scores points.

Electric said...

Metacrock,

Do you not understand? I have known you online for some time now. I know you to be an intelligent man, with many opinions, some of which I disagree with, and all of which I would love to debate. But the way you react makes it impossible. I'm not talking about you "exposing hate". If that were the case, fair enough. I'm talking about the constant insults you throw at atheists both in general and in particular. I have never insulted you, but recently I can recall you have called me stupid, brain washed, a zombie, and a dumb ass. How can I - or anyone - discuss issues with you when disagreeing with you automatically incurs insults like that?

Above you claim that I am "assuming that exposing hatred is hateful". That's false. Then you say that I "completely excuse what they have done to me and just assume 'them vs us, they are bad we are good'". That's false, too. Then you claim that I am "totally the hatred that [you] have demonstrated over and over again", but that, too is false. Look back over your blog, over CARM, over whereever - you will not find a single insult from me to you. Not one. Yet you constantly insult me. How does that make me "totally the hatred"?

Re-read your last couple of blog posts. From start to finish, they are an attack on atheists and atheism. You aren't just exposing something, you are viciously attacking them. Just from your last post, you say that a particular atheist "throws a tantrum" and "a hissy fit" when all he has done is disagree with you. Later you call him "ignorant little puddle duck", "a little hate monger", and so forth. You might disagree with what he said - perhaps very strongly. But why belittle him personally? Do you think that makes people want to engage with you?

I am trying to help you, Meta. As I've said, I believe you have something to contribute. But whatever you have, it's not getting through to those with whom you disagree, because all you do is insult them. Maybe that's your aim. Maybe you've decided that all atheists are not worth your time, and your sole duty is to expose them, rather than convince them of their errors by argument and logic. I don't know. But what you are doing is alienating people.

By the way, how is your book going? Have you found a publisher? In another post somewhere (I can't remember where I read it) you seemed to imply you had?

Metacrock said...

Electric you just don't examine the details to see what has been said to me before I say stuff. You just assume its all me and completely ignore what they said to set it off.

Electric said...

Electric you just don't examine the details to see what has been said to me before I say stuff. You just assume its all me and completely ignore what they said to set it off.

That's not remotely true, Meta - it's just your standard response. I have never insulted you. Not once. Yet you repeatedly deliberately insult me. That is all you. The same is true of the vast majority of your discussions. Until you understand/admit this you're not going to improve.

a-hermit said...

"Electric you just don't examine the details to see what has been said to me before I say stuff. You just assume its all me and completely ignore what they said to set it off."

That's the same bullshit excuse you've been giving me for years...

I don't care what anyone else may or may not have said to you; their rudeness was not a license for you to call me a "buttfucking nazi."

Metacrock said...

hermit says:"I don't care what anyone else may or may not have said to you; their rudeness was not a license for you to call me a "buttfucking nazi."

that's ture. You are also misleading the people in not discusssing how apolgoized, how it was a loooOOOoong time ago, many years. I apologized a lot several times and worked at making friends with you and keep allowing you back even though it seems clear your only interest is in wrecking my work here.

you prove two thigns:

(1) atheists can't forgive (proof of need for emotional healing)

(2) dishonesty in seeking to create a false impression.

Metacrock said...

That's not remotely true, Meta - it's just your standard response. I have never insulted you. Not once. Yet you repeatedly deliberately insult me. That is all you. The same is true of the vast majority of your discussions. Until you understand/admit this you're not going to improve.

I've also pointed out to you how hard it is to differentiate between one guy and 30 others when 30 are attacking mocking and ridiculing trying to destroy self esteem and trying to wound emotionally and being totally ridiculously unfair and I'm supposed to notice this one guy who shared their disguise for me and their tone and their world view and calmly deliberate exactly what his role is.

sorry that you get some overflow from the mass of atheist mockers but that can't be helped. Of cousre you never step in and say "we are begin unfair here let's pipe down in mocking him."

It balances.

a-hermit said...

"I've also pointed out to you how hard it is to differentiate between one guy and 30 others "

See what I mean? It's all someone else's fault, isn't it?

And in my experience most of those 30 others are just reacting to you calling everyone idiots.

". Of cousre you never step in and say "we are begin unfair here let's pipe down in mocking him."

I've stood for you more than once, not that you ever notice.

Metacrock said...

bull shit Hemit. you haven't stood up for me any way that mattered.

do you really think I don't see your ploy of put the persecution on trial?