Atheist Ideology Brainwashes over Time.

Here is evidence that atheism slowly takes over one's mind with ideological brain washing.
 About five years ago "Fleetmouse" on carm was a very bright guy. He's still bright (now he's "Magritte") but he used to be open minded enough that he actual defended my cosmological argent on a message to other atheists. This is so rare for an atheist to defend a theists God arguments. Over the years he's been ceased by an every strong grip of atheist ideology until today he is about arguing that if one dares to argue for a view point he doesn't like that int itself is proof that it's wrong. Certainly his CARM post today shows that he's very narrow minded because he bases his appeal on two fallacies of logic:

Originally Posted by Magritte

This is a distraction and diversion from examining the claims of religion. It's a HUGE red herring, and the exact same tactic can and will be used in defense of homeopathy, scientology, spirit channeling, the planet Niburu, David Icke's lizardoid theories and God knows what else - when you have no reasonable evidence, throw the ball back into the doubter's court. Ask what a ball is and what a court is. How do I know I'm even asking you questions about your beliefs? Wow, what a sophisticated approach! You must be terribly learned and wise, not like that hamfisted unschooled skeptic asking you annoying questions.

 Here's what he says this in regard to: this is the post he's calling a distraction:


by Occum, who is explaining why he's not a presuppositionist.

 The distinction is that the presuppositionalist wants you to plant Christianity at the base of your worldview, while I'm trying to get you to plant something there that makes sense to you. I want atheists to systematize and organize their worldviews so that they can be assessed objectively. While the presuppositionalist is interested in the foundations of our knowledge in order to stop the discussion, I'm interested in the foundations of our knowledge in order to get the discussion going.

 This  is what he's saying is: "when you have no reasonable evidence, throw the ball back into the doubter's court. Ask what a ball is and what a court is. How do I know I'm even asking you questions about your beliefs? Wow, what a sophisticated approach!"

If he is saying that about Occam's post my point is obvious. He wont even allow one to explain a distinction in one's view and another view or to make arguemnt fro one's view. I have a feeling he will say he's talking peresupperism and not Occam's view. That's cool. I can sort of agree with him there. I have a feeling that does extend that to all Christian apologetic. Look at the comparison. There is no reaosn why he would draw the comparison bewteen homeopathic medicine and presupposition any more than he would between that and all Christianity. Occam seems to have undestood it this way too because he says:

Occam:

That's a very natural and understandable response.

However, I must insist that if you are going to criticize a worldview because it does not measure up to your standards of evidence, you should know what you mean by evidence. Maybe you think "evidence" is too deep and abstract as a concept to be honestly questioned, but then, what is the level of abstraction at which all inquiry must stop? Is this not contrary to true philosophy?

Ultimately, your stance is as anti-intellectual as the theist who never questions the existence of God because he does not trust his mind.

Here are the fallacies he's committing.


(1) black is white slide.

two opposites can be made to seem like the same thing becuase one or two points of contact.

(2) argument from analogy.

"groups I don't like reason this way, I see similarities in your reasoning, therefore, you must be wrong too."

these are the fallacies that make up this appeal. then you do a narrow minded thing where you just close down shop and stop thinking, disallow arguments, intellectual reasoning and the standard means of proving one's view.

IF you look at works there's a clear implication that "If you don't accept the premise of my ideology then you can't be right" which is to say "your view are off the atheist template nothing off temple can be valid."

You are also assuring that scinece proves truth you are assuming those other groups can't be right since they don't past muster on your litmus test of scientific proof for their views.

There's another major problem here. He says "when you have no reaosnable evidence throw the ball back into the doubter's court."  All that really means is he' carping about having to meet the same stadnards of evidence he wants accuse the theist of failing to meet. He wants a pass for being a Semitic. It's a standard ploy of the atheist rhetoric to assume their position is privileged and only the theist has to prove soemthing.

Atheist Incredulity

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.

More Atheist Incredulity: when an Arguement is Too Good

We need to be aware of the games atheist play and know how to defeat them rhetorically. One of the major games they play is argument form incredulity. That's becuase that's the only real argument they have. The argue form incredulity almost all the time. I say " real argument" its' not a real argument and the better more reasonable one's don't' use it. But unfortunately many do. I have discussed on this blog before how to spot it in it's many forms. Here's another one. On CARM an atheist lays down the challenge that John did not record all the symptoms that a corpus would undergo in the hours that Jesus was dead. He doesn't get rigor mortis, he doesn't have post mortim livitiy, no pools of blood, ect ect. I put down a long quote by Stroble quoting a Forensic pathologist saying that one aspect of John's recored does indicate what a dead body would do when the flouid comes out of his side, indicating a lung was priced.

The atheist comes back let's take it from there:


Originally Posted by Username

Strobel can't be trusted. And a doctor giving his impression of the gospel writing, which, frankly also can't be trusted (did you see the part about Zombies walking around the city?!?!) doesn't help.

Meta:

now you are just indulging in open argument from incredulity and poisoning the well. "Well if you have evidence that disproves my thing then I'll refuse to believe it."

Notice the immediate groundless attack on the sources. We can't trust the sources, why? he doesn't  know but we just can't. That's part of the incredulity thing, which means "I refuse to believe no matter what." I point out,

that's not an argument, in fact that hurts your position a lot. becasue the only thing you can say to counter a disprove is 'I refuse to believe it, that can't be trusted."

its' silly to throw in the bible can't be trusted becuase you that tack then why speak about the nature of the text anyway? In other word you will never allow anything to count against you because as soon as it does you start whining "no fair ir use good evidence."

even if the NT did have a perfect forensic description of the corpus you would say "O they just made that up." So there can never be evidence.

that just demonstrates the atheist inability to argue fairly!

how do you know stroble can't be trusted? probably because he disagrees with you, right?

Username

See, Meta, nothing you are saying helps.

Meta

ahahahahah of course not, but then I don't nee help, you beat self fine. You simply cannot refuse to allow anything to ever counter against your case. remember the little word "falsifiable?" That goes for arguments to. you will not allow your arguments to be falsifiable, because they are disproved you whine it cant' be so. That means nothing more than the fact that your arguments are not logical, they have no basis in logic.

to make a logical argument there must be the possibility it can be beaten. If every time the evidence counts against your argument the evdience must be wrong, doesn't mean you have a good argument, it's the death knell for it.

You this is the rhetorical way to handle it. Don't just say "you don't make sense" tell them you jsut undercut your own argument. why? because if "nothing helps" in other words "nothing can ever count against my position" then it's not falsifiable and it can't be proved either. He just made it unprovable. I just today saw good article all Christian apologists should read, Karl Popper explaining why things have to be falsifiable.

Username:

Think carefully about it. You are trying to give established scientific facts about how a person dies on the cross, then you REJECT the scientific facts of what happens after being dead for 3 days.

Meta

(1) There is no record given either way. you are merely asserting that it should be.nothing actually contradicts scientific fact. its' merely omission.

In other words what I meant was John doesn't say "there was no rigor moritis" there's no contrdition its omission but there's no reason to expect him to include such detail. He did with the fluid in the side that was just luck. They guy was not a Forensic Pathologist so there' no reason to expect him to record all these tell tale signs.

(2) there's no reason to expect that they would have forensic evidence becasue John was not a forensic pathologist and they did not have the scinece at that time.

(3) I prove (with expert opinion from a pathologist) one thing John said does happen to coincide with what would be the scientific fact of a corps so that means there's a good indication he was dead that assertion that he was not is groundless.

Username

It's called SPECIAL PLEADING!!!!!

I can accept that everything the Good Doctor says is true, if it really happened. But then you have a CONTRADICTORY account of MEDICAL FACTS: That Jesus didn't exhibit ANY of the signs of having been dead for 3 Days.

Meta

you don't know that he didn't (in fact what I talk about is one so he did exhibit one of them). There is fact no reason why they would have recorded that. they didn't contradict it, just doesn't say so you don't' have an argument.

Username

Just because someone should have died under those conditions doesn't mean they did, or that it was the same person who came back to life, or that the stories are even true.

Try again.

Meta
the medical examiner says he did. because you whine and refuse to believe it:


Look at the arrogance on this turkey!

here's another source.

While death on the cross may have been caused by any number of factors, and likely would have varied with each individual case, the two seemingly most prominent causes of death probably were hypovolemic shock and exhaustion asphyxia (DePasquale, 1963; Davis, 1965). Others have proposed dehydration, cardiac arrhythmia, and congestive heart failure with the rapid accumulation of pericardial and pleural effusions as possible contributing factors (Lumpkin 1978; Clements, 1992, pp. 108-109. The ability of Christ to cry out with a loud voice indicates that asphyxia was probably not the major causative factor.

The finality of death upon the cross often was accomplished by the breaking of the legs of the victims, which caused still more traumatic shock and prevented an individual from pushing up in order to fully respire. In an effort to get the bodies off the crosses before the Sabbath day,

the soldiers therefore came, and brake the legs of the first, and of the other that was crucified with him: but when they came to Jesus, and saw that he was dead already, they brake not his legs: howbeit one of the soldiers with a spear pierced his side, and straightway there came out blood and water (John 19:32-34).

Much speculation has centered on the exact location of the puncture wound and thus the source of the resulting blood and water. However, the Greek word (pleura) that John used clearly denotes the area of the intercoastal ribs that cover the lungs (Netter, 1994, p. 184). Given the upward angle of the spear, and the thoracic location of the wound, abdominal organs can be ruled out as having provided the blood and water.

A more likely scenario would suggest that the piercing affected a lung (along with any built-up fluid), the pericardial sac surrounding the heart, the right atrium of the heart itself, the pulmonary vessels, and/or the aorta. Since John did not describe the specific side of the body on which the wound was inflicted, we can only speculate about which structures might have been impaled by such a vicious act. However, the blood could have resulted from the heart, the aorta, or any of the pulmonary vessels. Water probably was provided by pleural or pericardial fluids (that surround the lungs and heart).

CONCLUSION

It is with both medical and biblical certainty that we know Christ died upon the cross at Calvary. He was laid in a tomb with nail wounds in His hands and feet, and still possessed those scars following His resurrection. The extreme physical insults to Christ’s body left Him ragged, torn, bleeding, and tormented with pain. Yet He endured willingly all the agony and torment of the cross for each one of us. As Paul wrote:

For He Himself is our peace, who has made both one, and has broken down the middle wall of separation, having abolished in His flesh the enmity, that is, the law of commandments contained in ordinances, so as to create in Himself one new man from the two, thus making peace, and that He might reconcile them both to God in one body through the cross, thereby putting to death the enmity (Ephesians 2:14-16).

We would do well to heed the advice of the writer of the book of Hebrews, who said:

Let us lay aside every weight, and the sin which so easily ensnares us, and let us run with endurance the race that is set before us, looking unto Jesus, the author and finisher of our faith, who for the joy that was set before Him endured the cross, despising the shame, and has sat down at the right hand of the throne of God (12:2).

Oh, the overwhelming love that God showed each one of us when He allowed His only begotten Son to suffer that excruciating (Latin, excruciates, or “out of the cross”) pain and agony—for our sake!

Tomorrow I'll deal with a more rational argument