More Atheists to Watch: Chatpilot's "God is a myth" site

part 2 of prescriptive/descriptive laws of physics coming Wednessday


http://chatpilot-godisamyth.blogspot.com/2014/11/the-pros-of-atheism.html

ChatpilotOctober 9, 2015 at 5:55 PM

My devotion to Jesus started out as love and gratitude for saving me a poor wretched piece of shit sinner. I praised and adored him every waking moment of every day. But... fear was always present when it came to displeasing him. In fact, the Bible often admonishes believers to fear the Lord.

Here we have a good indication that his conversion was not real. "perfect love casts out fear." Thank God the person who led me to the Lord taught me that God wants us to love ourselves.

I could care less what that blogger says the rules of logical reasoning state that the one making the positive claim must bear the burden of proof. I can't disprove that God does not exist but I am not making that definitive claim that he does not exist. I am simply stating that if you say he does then prove it! If you don't understand that then I can't help you.

The atheists struggle to keep their exemption from the burden to proof. Of course atheists don't care about logic, its about convincing themselves the ideology is true. Look at the double standard. They make all kinds of claims about Christianity and slough off proof with "I didn't say God doesn't exist.? JB told him about my book and showed him my list of God arguments but he still says "you have to prove God exists before you can assert anything about Go0d." That's the old >you must prove God before you can argue for God." So there is no way to ever meet a prima facie burden but they never have to prove anything. That is irrational. Chatpilot is a bright guy and he strikes me as ones, but he's picked up the bad habits the ideological brainwashing teaches. He must show why my list of 42 God arguments and my book are not close enough to proof to allow statements about God?

Here's what he says about the book:

Chatpilot:

Thanks for sharing that link. But after a cursory perusal of the information provided by the author I have found no need to have to read his 418 page book. Let me explain: First off his idea of God is not the traditional view of God as recognized and believed in by the majority of the Christian churches of our day and age.

why must one have a traditional understanding. Where does he get the idea that only the traditional view is valid? More over God as being itself is a tradition in Christian theology going back to John of Damascus in the 800s.

Chatpilot:

He states clearly that his concept of God is "not an argument for the existence of God" so you are using this information improperly here. He also makes abstract assertions of God who he claims is beyond our understanding.

he quotes me:

"God is primordial being. God is ontologically prior to all that is (save himself of course that goes without saying)." " God is the framework in which our whole existence takes place, we can't think of God as "a being" because he's totlaly off scale, hes not a being along side other beings hes' the basis upon which beingness has any meaning."

Chatpilot: These are some very big claims that forego the most essential step of all which is proving the existence of God. This is also known as putting the horse before the carriage. Second, how can you make any assertions about something which at the same time you claim is beyond human understanding? God is supposed to be ineffable yet Christians put a lot of time and effort trying to describe and understand what is supposed to be impossible to know.

Metacrock: He says this in response to my list of arguments and my book (which backs two arguments from experience). In saying that I can't make states about my belief until I prove it, when those states are the advancement of arguments to "prove" it (justify) is the old fallacy prove the argument before you can make it. That's obviously an illogical and unfair burden as it would mean no one could ever make an argument.
Chatpilot:

The author brings nothing new to the table. It's nothing more than a bunch of empty assertions thought up in his mind in order to convince himself and others of the existence of a being he believes to exist. Finally, if anything his initial description of God sounds more like the deistic view of God making him a deist and not a Christian.

Metacrock:
So many atheists have asserted that I made this up and no one else believes it, totally irrational since I'm quoting theologians all the time. It's totally obvious I didn't make it up. Of course he refuses to read the book. see the side bar for link to amazon for The Trace of God by Joseph Hinman. When he says I bring nothing new to the table that just shows he has not read any of the arguments (the two arguments covered in the book are on the list on Doxa. I defy you to find anyone who uses the arguments I use! God is being itself? The Transcendental signifier, who says that? Did he read any of it?

What other apologist has 200 studies backing up his arguments and deals with them in such depth he writes a 400 page book about it? Not that I'm putting myself up with Swinburne or Plantinga but no message board poster does that. The Trace is a ground breaking work. All I did was report on the work of Dr. Hood. But Hood comes real close to proof. He guy demands proof but he wont listen when he gets it (or wont read it).That is another reason to think there's a brain washing process, because it's so common.

Chatpilot

You can't claim to know something on the one hand then in the same breath claim that he or it is unknowable. That is what is known as a contradiction or a paradox.

Metacrock: Of course you can because I specified different ways of knowing. We can't know exhaustively, or I accurate verbiage but we can experience God and know through experiential means. Gopd