Stupid atheist post of the day: "big thinker"

So called "big thinker" has a big stupid post in which he says the basic ignorant things that most atheist know to avoid. He thinks he's being brilliant.

Originally Posted by bigthinker

Actually, that is exactly what YOU do, not me.
I don't need arguments because science deals with evidence, not what you THINK exists. Arguments deal with what one THINKS. Evidence, since it exists outside of the mind, is beyond the realm of argument.

that's ludicrously stupid. Science make arguemnt to defend hypothesis that you don't know underscores how little you know about science. Science doesn't prove things it can only disprove. read Popper. science does not give you a big fortress of facts because it can't prove your world view.

science is not opposed to God. there is no science that says "there can't be a God." so you are just turning scinece into something its not, ideology.


BT:

Yep. And science deals with evidence. And science is sufficient and is the correct tool for determining the existence and nature of things that exist outside the mind. Arguments deal with ideas and logic forms the guidelines for dealing with arguments.

arguments deal with evidence. Science is not sufficient to disprove the existence of God. that is true proof you don't know anything bout scinece. that's childish and demonstrates a total lack of understanding.

(1) God is outside of time, how are you going to get outside of time to see if he's there?

(2) God is beyond the basis of reality because the world we live in is a thought in his mind. how you are going to get outside your mind to check that you are not hallucinating and then outside the reality of the world to make sure its' not a thought in a mind?

you just can't do it. so you have to just guess based upon your biases which are not good.


BT:

Rather god can't compete with science because science actually does something; science produces actual results, God doesn't.

god doesn't have to compete with science because they have different domains. Science couldn't out explain God because it can't explain most things.

science can't solve the basic epistemological dilemmas that I mapped out.

BT

Science puts God in its proper context.

Wishing for it doesn't make it so. you have scinece totally out of it's proper context. science proper context is the physical world and nothing more. it reality, not nature not epistemology not metaphysics. science can't tell us squat about God.


BT

There is no evidence that God exists outside of the mind and there is only evidence that God exists within the mind.

I brought several pieces of evidences and you did not answer them. your statement is totally dishonest becasue you are hiding the fact that you have no answers.


BT

So even after I informed you about circular reasoning, you STILL don't know what that is? sheesh dude, you might consider some education!

After I showed that his arguments are circular he began saying mine are. I said his were because he would assert God is only a concept in the mind, the argue that he had proved God is only in the mind (he never actually made an argument but merely asserted it) therefore since God is only in the mind he had proved there's no God. His premise rests on his conclkusion, circuklar reasoning. He still hasn't given a reason why my arguments are circular.

you still don't know what that means because you didn't answer the question. you can't tell me the definition of circular

I showed that your reasoning is circular. YOU CAN'T EVEN TAKE THE CLUE AND LOOK AT WHAT i SAID TO KNOW THE DEFINITION!

StOoPiD MoNkEy Displays Typical Atheist Ignorance.

On the post the circular nature of atheist ideology this character calling himself "StOoPiD MoNkEy chimes in to show us that he doesn't know what circular reasoning is.

his comment:

This example of circular reasoning that your attribute to atheist does not work. What exactly was the evidence that the theist presented. Personal experience perhaps? If that is the case, well then yes...that is not evidence. Please remember, the burden of proof is on those making a positive claim. As far as CARM goes. It has been shown already that Matt Slick is full of it and most of, if not all, his arguments have big issues with them.

Here we see the problem immediately. He's reciting slogans form the atheist propaganda wagon without thinking about how they apply or what they mean. For example who has the burden of proof has nothing to do with weather or not the argument they make is circular. The only issue in relation to circular reasoning is "does the premise rest upon the conclusion." I'll show momentarily that in the case I discussed it does. That's a totally separate issue form who has the burden of proof. He says the example of circular reasoning doesn't work but then he doesn't bother to say why. He goes off reciting propaganda slogans and doesn't deal with the issue.

Of course he recites the ignorance programed into him by his atheist brain washers, that personal experience can't prove anything. That has nothing to do with the circular nature of their argument, which is what my blog spot was about.

here is the post in question.

The Circular nature of atheist ideology

Atheism wants to pass itself off as "scientific." So they cling to the scienistic idea that science is the only form of knowledge. They truncate the nature of truth to that which can be produced by their own methods. Anything else they reduce until they lose the phenomena. So at that point atheism can't have truth all it can have is circular reasoning.


atheist: "there is nothing beyond the materiel realm. There are no proof of the SN, No evidence for God, no nothing.

Believer--Here's some, here's a whole pile facts from which one might deduce the existence of God.

Atheist: "those can't be evidence for SN or for God."

Believer--why not?

Atheist: Because there can't be any such evidence.

Believer--how do you know that?

Atheist: because there aren't any


Beleiver--what about the stuff I just presented.

Atheist: I disproved that, it can't be evidence because there isn't any.

that little hypothetical exchange Demosthenes the circle in the reasoning, the premise rests on the conclusion because he starts form the premise that there can't be any proof for SN because it's SN and that doesn't issue in proof. The proof of that statement is that based upon excluded all examples, there are no examples. That's obviously circular reasoning; the conclusion is the same as the premise.

it doesn't make any difference if other aspects of theistic argument are wrong or badly done that who has the burden of proof is irrelevant to circular reasoning. he's not even thinking about logic as a subject of it's own, but just as an aid to further propaganda..

(1) Atheists selective rule out as 'fact' anything that doesn't match the ideology.

(2) Atheists reduce to a point of losing the phenomena any phenomena that stands against the ideology.

(3) Atheists use mockery and ridicule to shut down any discussion that is not in line with the ideology.

(4) Atheists exclude from reality any form of knowledge would give results contrary to the ideology.

(5) Atheists construct a false paradigm of knowledge based upon scientistic (not scientific but scientistic) assumptions.

(6) All thinking must be filtered through the ideology of atheistic sceintism.
__________________


Here's the rational, logical, factually oriented rebuttal of an atheist on CARM

NWRT- not worth responding to. And nothing you've written here changes that. I'll start taking you more seriously as an intellectual once you start addressing our actual arguments.

Go back and look over what you just wrote- now apply it to yourself. You do nothing but post ridiculous arguments (like your little "co-determinate" joke), insult people when they present legitimate disagreement, and present strawman versions of atheist's positions. Why on earth would anyone be interested in trying to have a genuine, serious discussion with you?

I asked him what's ridiculous about it:

I've explained it to you a million times- strong belief is not controlled for. And, true to form, you've only answered your strawman version of my argument.

Holy Irony Batman, doesn't this actually prove what I was saying? I have 300 studies he has 0. He decides this 'strong belief' which he can't define without a single study to back it up. Isn't this really a case of declaring my fact to be "no facts" because they differ form the ideology?

How Brave Are Atheists Really When it Comes to Science?

A coward is dishonest. Stories of war "heroes" and people who acted in ways we call "brave," say they were afraid. They say it's not cowardly to fear. What is cowardly is not facing fears.

Intellectually the greatest fear is to have your arguments disproved.
I have been discussing studies about religious experience for years. I've posted massive amounts of info on the subject and on the studies on this board on my blogs and on the boards, not to mention my website.

Yet these studies are met with cowardice and fear on the part of atheists. they mock and slander having never read a single study! maybe someone looked up one (It think he actually read it).

Maybe 2 atheists have actual looked a bit of the primary material and commented but those comments were not anywhere near as negative as the bs ridiculous little slander of people have haven't come close to even reading a single study.

It is cowardice. I call you all cowards. None of you have my respect as thinkers because you slander things you don't know about, wont go any trouble at all to learn about it, I wrote a whole book then someone said "You wont 30 pages" like thats' some little things. Have you typed 30 pages, copying them form a text? why should I do that then the response will be not valid methodological criticism but the kind of pathetic half baked little nagging you have been doing.

*they once argued the studies are no good becuase they appear in a bibliography with a source by depok Choppra (and they had no idea why the source quoted Choppra).
* similar cirticisms based upon association with those who quote from the studies.
*because the studies mostly use surveys.
*one person read one article that summarized a bunch of the studies, and for no reason at all announced that "this is not a summary of independent studies. these sources are not studies" (I got several of them and read them and they were studies).
*lying about the peer reviewed nature of certain publications
*confusing arguments with the way I use the data vs with study methodology (I use it wrong therefore it's a bad study).


These are just a few of the myriad ridiculous knit picking irrelevant garbage argumetns it's on the basis of these that they have come to recite the slogans like mantra "every knows your studies are not good." no one has read a single study all the way through, most have not even seen one.

The only thing that comes close to real scholar arguments are these:

*Hermit kept pushing a study that showed serotonin levels correlated with religious experience. I looked up his study and found they didn't use a valid measurement to determine mystical experience. he did quote a study I use that is not against RE and does use the M scale and links the experience to serotonin. The author of that study says his study does not disprove the divine in mystical experiences. The author of that study in fact is a best friend of the inverter of the M scale (that was the Johns Hopkins study by Grifiths).

*one atheist found a study on the net that he claimed disproved the m scale, after reading it and finding it supports the m scale I pointed out the first pages says it supports it.
* one guy actually read a bit of the chapter I link to and said "here's a study that is disproved, this shows tha these studies are no good." It was disproved alright, it was an example of Hood showing why his M scale was needed and how its' much better than studies done previously, that was the previous study done before the M scale that had the problems. He's just taking it out of context to make my studies look bad.

These are the kinds of piddling dumbo stuff that is the basis of the mantra "everyone had read your studies and says they are not good." The very best attacks are out of context or actually support my view.

Then there re the cowards who will not look up a study, they wont click on a link but keep slandering the studies and talking everyone disproved.

that's just typical atheism anyway because that's all atheists ever do is ignore answers that theists give and go on saying the same things all the time.

I think the refuse to look up the marital is cowardly. They are afraid that God will be proved by the scientific work, that will cause their entire world view and self esteem to crash, they have to deny that at all costs. they would rather risk being dishonest cowards than to be disproved.