Exercise in atheist sophistry 110

Yesterday on the CARM board I argued something I had been working on. Getting very tired of the repetitive nature of atheists, their constant mantra "there's no proof for your God," I decided to drive home the point that they have not answered my arguments in a way that would really force them to deal with their dishonesty. This is a big mistake because you can't make people deal with that. I wrote a thing that emphasized the turning point in each argument,the thing they have to do to beat that arguemnt. Remember my arguments are not to prove that God has to exist, but that belief that God exits is rationally warranted. At first they went all the way down the page without even trying to answer the specifics. Some did actually try but for most of them there was nothing but an indigent personally insulting cutesie answer mostly about how stupid I am how I must be wrong because I'm insulting.

Here's the orignal post I made:

Remember I argue that I don't have to prove that God exists, but demonstrating that there's good reason to believe in God is the warrant for belief; the proof that belief is rational. That proof comes by the making of a prmia facie case. one that is valid on face value.


the result of my God arguments are that I have made many PF cases. I have affirmed that they are not beaten and when I say this the atheists say "O they suck, we beat them all the time" when I give them concrete goals to meet to prove this they back off. here are goals: you must overturn these to beat each argument:

You haven't won a single one of those arguments. Not one.

Religious experience studies (200) that establish RE as transformative and show across the board better for you than unbelief, the M scale makes the study of such objective so we can have controls and compare things.

*O really, so what's your methodological attack on Hood's studies?

CA:I argue that eternal necessary being is the basis of reality and that universe is contingent upon being itself.

*show me the proof that the universe popping form nothing with no prior conditions

Religious experience version of the ground of being argument.

I argue that that which evokes the sense of the numinous is the proper object of religious devotion and that eternal necessary being does evoke same.

* prove that eternal necessary being doesn't evoke the sense of the numinous

Thomas Reid Argument or Argument form epistemic judgement:

this is major becuase it's an absolute justification for bleief in God. The criteria we use to decide the reality of experiences is met by religious experience; we can trsut it as a guide to reality.

* prove threat RE doesn't conform to the criteria we use to determine to determine epistemic judgement.

The Transcendental Signifier argument

I say that the fact that we can't speak or organize ideas or give meaning to anything without a TS is a good indication that there is a TS in reality that does this for reality; that is God's job description.

* answer the TS argument. show me an idea about meaning or nature that doesn't require a TS.


until you beat all of these you have no right to mouth the bromide about no evidence.

 The early answers:

Madmax:

He falls back upon a general argument against religion without even considering the existence of God. In fact he basically implies that my arguments are true but he hates religion anway:


Originally Posted by madmax2976

*shrug* Hec, I've made a pretty good PF case for God myself - it's not hard to do but doesn't really seem to accomplish much. Plus, it's a far cry from there to genital mutilation, suicide bombing, reincarnation, and redeeming human sacrifices.

 Meta: I answer with an analogy designed to show what's wrong with his thinking. The idea is that he opposes religions because some religoius people have done some bad things, I show the same kind of thinking could lead one to oppose scinece.

those are ridiculous ideas. you think you are disproving region becasue of that that's just stupid. that's ridiculous. that's like saying "scinece might work a little bit, I even made telegraph for science fair in fourth grade but it's a far cry from there to the atomic bomb." scinece is wrong and bad because it led nuclear weapons.

This had an unexpected result because it just led to several atheists attacking me for hating scinece, as though they thought I was seriously arguing that scinece is wrong. no matter many ways I tried to explain it they got more intense about how stupid it is to oppose scinece. They are idiots. How can one reason with a bunch of idiots?


 CRM says: "You seem to be ok with the bit of science that allows you to bring your message to the masses on the www..." As though that's the real issue.

 Originally Posted by Metacrock

i have no use for someone who pretends to debate and doesn't understand the basics of argument.

NotAnAthist: Now you understand precisely why I put you on ignore months ago
 He calls himself "not an atheist" but he might as well be one; he blocks with them every single time and he spits back their ideology and their slogans every time. All he's doing here is just making personal insults.


 Another poster makes a veg statement about a pool anallogy and I aruged:

Originally Posted by Metacrock

I don't want to put it beyond reasonable doubt. If I did that would mean God's reality is subject to my calculation. There's always reasonable doubt. I think my arguemnts demonstrate that belief is totally justified and good solid evidence exists that warrants belief. that's not beyond reasonable doubt.

both sides have their rational warrants. I think belief has the stronger warrant. that doesn't eliminate doubt. That's where the leap comes in.

Just like when I was a kid, all the contemplation on the end of high dive wont put you in the water, you have to jump!

Super Genyus: But a smart person checks to make sure the pool is filled with water before he jumps.
by this time we have about 50 posts in the thread not one of them is about the op. they are this kind of persona quip BS that has nothing to do with the issues. Then CRM goes into some antics trying to pyschologize me:

Skylurker makes a general statment that is veg and not specific:
Originally Posted by skylurker

The evidence is of insufficient quality for me and does not rise above the countering evidence and incoherencies... for you maybe not... I am ok with that.

Meta: "you haven't answered one of them! not one of you has even tired you lose."

that's where CRM goes into his antics.


CRM:

 This burning desire to "win" and prove to yourself that you are right is quite interesting...I can't seem to find any evidence that you do all of this to convince other people of the existence of God.

 He says this after about 40posts, not one of them has even tried to address a single issue form any argument, yet he says this my burning desire to win which somehow must invalidate all the ideas I have in my head. I want to win, therefore, they must not be a God! As atheists don't want to win!

 Whatshisface (that's his name):"Your arguments don't win because they don't show God exists, the best they can say is God might exist. "

that's his big answer. they don't show God exists, which is odd becuase the conclusion of all of them are that they do show God exits. the arguments are arguments for belief in God. He's trying to say they don't prove God exists. they certainly give reasons to believe he does, he can't show that's not enough. No specifics. no answers to the specific arguments, no attempt to even answer them. this is literally all he argued. Everything else is about what's wrong with me.

Again as with 90% of atheist argument he's not arguing about the ideas, he's arguing about the persona making the ideas.

 Skylurker says "I have zero problems with you believing that this list of yours constitutes a prima facie case for you. In fact I am happy for you. ." I say "great then don't go around saying I have no evidence for God. he says:

The evidence is of insufficient quality for me and does not rise above the countering evidence and incoherencies... for you maybe not... I am ok with that.

 noting specific no proof no logic, just a pronouncement that makes it true. He doesn't even say way it's a reason to disbelieve the argument.


 Diest: 

"That's BS. You can't cherry pick the bible and say talking snakes and donkeys are stories. along with whatever else you choose to ignore and call it theology as if that's some big word to make others feel inferior to you. I submit you know nothing. You make it up on the fly, as I'll prove in a following post. "

 what does this have to do with arguments about the existence of God?




 it does on like this 76 posts and nothing. not a single answer to an idea with any substance.

my analysis: they are morons.