Monday, April 11, 2011

Atheist Special Pleading


On CARM over the week end I had this huge knock down drag out fight on a board with HRG and Mat Hunt on CARM. The issue that arose was the Big bang. They contend that Tegmark and others reinvent cosmology, the big bang no longer accepted, there's' no beginning of time, energy of the universe is eternal. See Metacrock's Blog this morning for a discussion about why this is not a big disaster for the apologist. It means a paradigm shift which undermines the atheist ideology of scinece as the fortress of facts.

Before this happens, however, I argued that Big Bang is backed by empirical data. None of the theories they are discussing are so backed. That means they are willing to take pure theory over empirical fact because they like what the theory says. I don't know how many times I've heard atheists say that there's no empirical proof for God. The atheist ideology as reflected on CARM has always been that they have piles of facts proved by empirical observation and we not one single empirical fact about God. Now it seems they are equally arrogant about a position that has no empirical backing.

This is a disaster for them and they don't even have the basic smarts to see that. This is becuase it not only undermines their ideology and disproves their garbage having this big fortress of facts and we don't have any, it not only means they are special pleading but it also backs the basic theory of Thomas Kuhn which says that scinece does not work by progress derived from a pile of facts but by a paradigm shift (see Metacrock's blog. AT the very least, however ,it is special pleading. Its' saying that everything else requires empirical observation but not the one thing that backs our view of things.

I also find a poster called Hooks who refused to read my links or look at any documentation I used on the grounds that "'It's by Christians, and Christians are stupid." This is another from of special pleading. Christian prove what they claim (remember the thread I discussed "Christians can't handle evidence") then when push comes to shove they don't want evidence. While not all atheists did this way the fact that many have (I've seen them do this before lots of times--refuse to read evdience on the grounds that it can't be true) that just closes off discussion with those individuals. It also means something more, it means the atheist community as a whole is involved in argument from incredulity as their basic and only real argument. Even the scientists are arguing from incredulity. They are saying "I don't care what the facts are, I want my theory at any cost, even the cost of truth."


solerso said...

You have a good blog blog entry but you need to go back and edit it and clean up the spell chack and cut-paste-delete revision errors. Its hard to read becasue of them. Im not criticizing what your saying based on grammar and syntax mistakes (thats an old internet atheist fave), just pointing out your post could be much more effective if you go back and clean it up

Metacrock said...

I don't know what you mean. I saw some underlines of things that spell check wouldn't know such as Tegmark and Metacrock. Only three words underlined that were changed by spell check. I don't see any problems with cut and paste delete revision errors because I don't think there are any. To what do you refer?

Joa said...

Metarock, your posting is full of spelling and other grammatical mistakes. Just in the first few sentences you typed: "re invent" (it should be one word), "there's'" etc. You may have a good argument though.

Metacrock said...

Ok Genius. what does it say on the mast head of hte board? Masthead, that means where the name of the board is? "Dyslexic at work." go look it up. what is a Dyslexic?

that will tell you why I can't screen out all the spelling.

Metacrock said...

do you see the "hte?" why would i write it that way? becuase I see it that way. If see stuff wrong how am I'm going to know its wrong? how am i going to know what write is when it see write wrong?

It does not effect my reasoning processes. do know about reasoning?