Thursday, March 6, 2014

There is no Athiest Ideology: It's just that Atheist Ideas Explain Everything and they are Always Right

  photo closed-mind2.jpg


Get a load of this. I put up a thread about the resurrection. it's me against at least ten atheists at once. Only one Christian has the guts to come down and say "you are doing really well." Usually they don't even do that. This one atheist, because he claims to be an M.D. is just so sure he's right he's getting angry becuase I best him on every issue. Look for the long string of exchanges with the idiot Arnold Chiari II. It will be apparent why I call him that.


He decides that Jesus couldn't raise form the dead because people jsut don't ever do that. I gave him the 400 cases from the Vatican archives we are supposed to just assume they are true becuase they violate what we want to believe about what we observe.

He also argues that I have no corroborating evidence. I said the original report form the communities that makes up the Gospels is the claim of the eye witnesses all the other evidence that backs their claim is corroboration; the Apostolic fathers showing how they knew Apostles and other disciples who saw Jesus and were privy to the words of the original witnesses. He began stomping his little foot and insisting that is not corroboration. What is it? It's just stories. In fact all my evidence is just stories. Then it comes out that my evidence has to be wrong becuase it violates what we  know about about nature and it's based upon belief. So say that's just ideology,t hat is ideological. you are saying we have to believe your ideology, rather than deny that he starts doing it more.

He also argued that Mark made up the empty tomb. I said Mark was not the first source of the story. The story was circulating in writing mid century that pre dates Mark. He continues to argue that Mark was the original source of the story even though he says "I know Mark was not the original source." then he says things like "but Mark made up blah blah." Then he specifies Mark did not make up the story but he made up the empty tomb. I quoted Koester, Crosson and Denker all saying that the empty tomb was part of the original stuff circulating at mid century.

Having lost all of that on the issues about the evidence he starts insisting that i have to be wrong. What I'm saying violates the accepted norm in the modern world, which is materialism. That's what I said his view was. So to prove that he's not just an ideologue he says basically, in short--you must believe my ideology, but it's not an ideology we are just right.

Leading up to the frank admission that it's ideology (without isuing the I word) he had argued that if we accept that Jesus rose form the dead we have to assume people will raise all the time. I said that would counter to the assumption about Jesus that it's a miracle. we aer not arguing Jesus' res is a product of nature but that it's a special work of God. then says I'm begging the qeustion. that's not begging the question is' explaining why his slippery slope fallacy is wrong.

 Originally Posted by Arnold Chiari II
I know what YOU think is corroborating evidence. I think it isn't. You need to deal with the idea of evidence that I am using.
Meta:

yes of course it is. It's corroborating the thesis. that's what corroborating means.It's backint it up. Corroborating doesn't mean absolute proof.
I have explained before that I always argue to a standard of warranted belief not proof.


Arnold Chiari II


There are many PUTATIVE observations of resurrections. A story is just a story. That's the point.
Meta:
that's neither here nor there. the story is a report of people who saw it happen. The things that back it up such as Apostolic father's testimony obviously is corroboration.

I named about eight things you are so unable to argue in a valid way you can't even deal with any of them.

you are just getting testy because you know lost. your little ideology says you can't lose to a Christian because Chrsitians are stupid. but you did.

Arnold Chiari II
Question begging, special pleading.... 
Meta:
no it's not prove how it is. you are just using labels you don't even understand.
Of course it's not special pleading, he's just asserting that belief if special pleading. I didn't say it's right becuase I believe it I said the nature of the beleif prevents the slippery slope reasoning of his argument form being a valid concern.



Arnold Chiari II
And if someone was going to claim that it happened, you should have more than just a story to corroborate that it DID happen. But you don't.
Meta:
ARE YOU REALLY THAT OBTUSE!??? A EYE WITNESSES TESTIMONY is NOT JUST A STORY GENIUS, iT'S AN ACTUAL TO FIRST HAND KNOWLEDGE, EINSTEIN.
your little atheist handlers have brain washed you to believe that eye witnesses are no good. No historian anywhere, no historian anywhere agrees!

I was getting a bit testy with him.


Arnold Chiari II

No, that's an ad hom. My assumed motives are irrelevant to the argument.
It's not about your motives, Newton, it's your logic. or lack of it.
Really I guess it is.


Arnold Chiari II
I'm telling you why anything you have said it isn't corroborating evidence. I'll try to make this clear to you: I'm an MD. The determination that someone is dead is not infrequently error prone.
MD's are not trained in history or logic. I'm not impressed that you are an MD. I'm a historian.
That does not make what I'm saying special pleading.





Arnold Chiari II
Many mistakes are made, by MDs, every year. There's a literature on this. Any account of a resurrection must conclusively rule out a diagnostic error, and this is not sometimes not simple or easy, or even, to my satisfaction, ever done. Autopsies have been started on people thought to be dead (and rapidly abandoned) . These are facts. 
Meta: these are facts! that really proves it because they are facts! It's also a fact that the the resurrection of Jesus is not a product of nature but supposedly a miracle of God so you can't judge it's realism by the products of nature. To even true is stupid. then I show the possibility of 400 resurrections becasue those claims are made in the Vatican archives. That doesn't mean they are true, I didn't aruge they are proved, I said they are possible. The point being Jesus's is not the only case where God supposedly raised someone. Even though we can't a rule of nature and say "this proves people raise from the dead" but it also is not the only time it was ever claimed.
Meta
that's just totality unimportant. If NJOM started refuse articles on the basis that doctors are wrong a lot they would no longer be takne seriously as a journal.

you can't just whip out the assertion that doctors can be wrong so anytime something disagrees with my ideology it has to be that this is one of those times.

can't you get it through your head that trying to argue that Jesus' case is opposed to nature is not going to work because that's the point! It' wouldn't be a miracle if it was in line what happens. It has to go against the norm or it's not improtant.

It's a work of God not a work of nature. the only we know it's a work of God is that it goes against nature.


Death itself is an irreversible, system wide failure of cellular respiration, and it invariably leads to a disruption of the patterned electrochemical cycles that are necessary for cardiac and brain function.
that's for suckers who don't believe in God. that's if you go by nata. We not going by Nata. we going by Gawd. Can't you get through your Yankee head?

Arnold Chiari II
That's what death is: the cessation of the capacity of the tissues to generate the electrochemical gradients necessary for cellular activity. Once they are gone (ie the person is actually dead) then there is no way to restart them. It doesn't happen, and it happening again would be as great a suspension of physical law as the sun rising in the west. Mistakes about death? happen. Mistakes by experts? They happen. Resurrection? No evidence, just stories. 

Do you see the bait and switch he's pulling? He says it's not what we find in nature therefore the evidence must wrong. then he turns around and says the evidence doesn't matter.  He's not arguing evidence he's just saying this contraray to our understanding of things so it must be wrong. If the evidence shows otherwise then the evidence is wrong. Conclusion: Atheists do not care about evidence..


Meta:
that whole argument merely boils down to I don't care about evidence, my ideology has to be right, nothing that contradicts my ideology can be true.

tha'ts not an argument it doesn't prove nothing.

back home in Texas we call being a *****. believe me in Texas we are experts on being ******.

The rest of your post is just BS about why I say what I say. It is ignorant. You don't know what you are talking about.
I beat you. you cannot argue. you can't undersatnd logic. you don't get the basic issues. you are just ideologue who cant reason.

I must be right cause I'm a doctor. (sure you are).

then maybrick sticks his nose in to second the ideological assumptions.

 photo mcx-refuse-to-listen-300x300.jpg


Originally Posted by maybrick View Post
This has been gone over with Meta till we are all to bored to respond to it again.

If it hasn't already, get ready for Lourdes to be bought up. And the elite team of Vatican miracle provers. And that meta himself has spoken to the Dr's on the Lourdes Prove a Miracle Panel.

They have actual evidence of cancerous lungs becoming healthy! X-Rays!


I wish you more luck than any of us who have gone before have had.

Unsinkable rubber ducks....
Meta:

ahahahahaahahahah

we keep this guy he has to be wrong becuase our ideology says. he just keeps inditing non going over the facts. we tell him the facts don't matter we tell him facts are not important.t he just wont shup up.

He still bleieve in that old fashions stuff about proving arguments.

but there's no atheist ideology. It's just we have the facts and we are always right. but we wont care about the facts, and facts that disagree with our facts are not good facts.

we don't have an ideology it's just that we think is always right.


AC II says:

 Originally Posted by Arnold Chiari II View Post
He doesn't seem well versed in the natural sciences.

In other words, you only know scinece if you agree with my ideology.


 this has been aded since I posted and it's so obvious I must include it.


Originally Posted by Arnold Chiari II View Post
No, I mean I have read your stuff and you don't seen to grasp natural science very well.
that's wrong and it's BS you are saying it to save face, but that doesn't matter. It's also irrelevant becuase it has nothing to do with the evidence for the res

You look at t the way most historians do. If you did understand it you would go after my idea of evidence, and apply it to a real example, and demonstrate how it does not work, but you can't, because you don't study nature: all you do is you read other people's ideas of how people study nature. 
 Notice he never did that himself within in the discussion. He only argued that it doesn't work, his only example of Mark which he agreed was not the original source of the resurrection and which I proved was not the source of the empty tomb.
that's an ideological statement if ever there was one: IF you really understood you would agree with me.
meta
I can extend on that: not if you are wrong big man herr Docktor


Arnold Chiari II
As to Popper and Kuhn, let's agree for the purpose of argument that I have neither read them, nor even heard of them. Show me that it makes a difference here.
Meta:
show how my ideas of science make a difference? you are implying that anyone who knows about science would agree that God didn't work a miracle on Jesus, that is BS it's not true it's empirically disproved as there are scientists who believe in the res.

you are using knowledge of scinece as membership in the club. If you dont' accept the ideology you can't be in he club. acceptance of ideology is defend as good knowledge of scinece.


CARM atehist board, thusday march 6, 2014
http://forums.carm.org/vbb/showthread.php?181024-Account-of-resurrection-transmitted-faitfully-from-the-begining&p=5373632&viewfull=1#post5373632

5 comments:

JBsptfn said...

Rule #1: The Atheist is always right.

Rule #2: If you are confused, see rule #1.

That is the Atheist philosophy in a nutshell, just assuming they are right because God and the supernatural "can't be real".

I just love them to death (lol).

Metacrock said...

yea no kidding! He says "I'm an M.D." so he knows science.

yonose said...

Meta,

It is really "amusing" to find the lack of inclusive thinking within those kinds, sadly...

I keep admiring your patience to deal with such "self-defeating-ness" (pun intended).

Is it that these people are just stuck or deny fundamentals for the sake of it??

Me, a simple undergrad electronics engineering student, is in the quest of understanding the implications of the use of logic (thanks internet very much, where I live engineers do not even get a comprehensive course of basic, aristotelian logic, for what it really is), that is limited -partially- in action by concepts seen in metalinguistics, and that in such basic concoctions the concept of experience needs to be extended beyond the classical concept of philosophical empirism (modal logic again :P)

That is something we already know. What really irks me a bit is such immature displays of academic elitism and the lack of "inclusive thinking". He/She could(can!!) really do much much better.

Kind Regards.

Metacrock said...

Well Yonose, you imply that your situation is limited educationally in that people in your chosen area are ghettoized from learning things outside the field.

The atheists we aer dealing with on carm are in the same boat, except they chose to ghetooize themselves. They are limited in understanding possibilities by thier their bigoted notions of how it has to be with religion and their hatred of religion.

Hate isolates us.

JBsptfn said...

Meta, that "I'm an MD (or anesthesiologist), therefore I know it all" attitude reminds me of that Gerald Woerlee guy that I told you about last year.

He was the one who thought that God and Mary should be stoned to death.