Ted Hoffman

*eyes glued to the tube*
*furiously scanning...pauses...highlights...Ctrl+c..Ctrl+V
Argument from ignorance.
*scans further....*

Tercel

In that case I'll be slightly more specific with my criticisms.

Obviously I think all the arguments you present are either wrong or unconvincing. And I won't bother going through what I think the problem with each any every one is since you've no doubt heard it before.
That said, I’m still going to comment on a few because I can.

“(A) The History of Science” seems to me to be more than a little dubious. Weren’t most of the founders of modern science Christian? Didn’t they do it in the belief that because Christianity was true their Science would work. It seems rather ingenious for you to thus argue that Science’s success is an argument against Christianity. It would seem to me like it’s the other way around.

As far as “(B) Physical Minds” is concerned you may (or may not) be interested in <a href="http://www.webcom.com/~ctt/hmosoul.html" target="_blank">This Article</a>.

“(J) Obsevation” seems rather… interesting. (I mean that in a bad way ) Did you make it up?

“(K) Cosmological Argument” aka Quentin Smith’s very sad joke. Hasn’t this been beaten to death sufficiently? Let’s face it, the Cosmological Argument has always been completely on the side of the theists and any attempt to hijack it will only prove absurd.

“(L) Argument From Multiple Creators”
Doesn’t the Trinity count as a multiple creator?

“(O) Ethical Confusion”
It seems ironic you’d choose to argue this when it is so regularly argued by theists that opposite is true.

W & X on the subject of God of the Gaps and Naturalistic science seem to be along the same lines as what Malaclypse and HRG have been trying to argue recently. Personally I think it’s too silly to be worth arguing, but somehow hey seem to have managed to drag me into an argument about it:
<a href="http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=50&t=000201" target="_blank">http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=50&t=000201</a>

You mean to say you’ve that as an atheist you’ve been posting to these forums and you haven’t read the atheists training manual? What on earth has happened to this place?
Here you go anyway:

-------------------------------------------------

<strong>The Freethinker's Guide to Debating Christians</strong>

1. Affect an amused condescending tolerance from the beginning, like you, the professor, might have time to indulge in lowering yourself to speaking with them. This sets the proper tone.

2. When you see one appear, usually they'll post a sweet intro, in which they'll use some such phrase like, "in Christ's love" or "God bless you". Take this as an immediate opportunity to post amongst yourselves intellectual messages like, "Uh oh, another fundie." and "Oh great, another idiot christian trying to ram their hate down our throats."

3. When the Christian posts some comment about how they only want to ask questions or explain things that might convert you, pretend that you didn't just say all those things to each other, condescendingly and wearily explain that "We get sooo many xtians in here who just want to condemn...(sigh)...that we our understandably leery." Make SURE you spell it "xtian".

4. Start the debate then by making it clear that it will do no good because there is no proof for god that you haven't heard and dismissed. Now is also a good time to mention how "the problem with xtians is that no matter what proof you give them their minds are already made up."

5. Dismiss faith with a "It's been proven invalid because it leads to the Dark Ages, and it led to the Dark Ages because it was invalid." Now is also a good time to mock the Christian for always saying stuff like, "God exists because the Bible says so, and the Bible is true because God said so." This is circular reasoning, something that intellectual giants like you would never commit.

6. Make sure that in any discussion of their beliefs that you refer to it in the most arrogant, mean and nasty way possible. DO NOT SAY, "I do not believe in the Bible because I have seen no proof of it's authenticity." Rather say, "I have to much love in my heart to put my blind faith in some foul book responsible for so much bloodshed throughout history. It may serve for fools who enjoy forcing indigenous people into believing it at gunpoint, but for any real man with brains, it's just plain trash." -- Big, Nasty, Angsty emotional flags dripping with rhetoric are your FRIEND. Now is a good time to mention that "My biggest problem with xtians is that they hate."

7. If any point out your own words being rather inflammatory and prejudiced, or dare to point out a certain paucity of evidence, then declare victory, "Ahhh, how like an xtian, try and reason with them and they lash out in hate and ignorance. Clearly there is no further point to this discussion, not with you unwilling to listen to reason."

8. Go post amongst yourselves how petty and hateful these ignorant Christians are, saying things like, "They need to be rounded up and sterilized/euthanized, it would improve evolution by a million years! lol" and "Yeah, those punks, the world would be better off without them." Now is an excellent time to remind each other that, "Hey, you got to watch those xtians, they'd burn people at the stake again if they had half a chance, they hate anyone who doesn't think just like them."

9. Miscellaneous questions to ask: A. Where did Cain get his wife? B. If God exists how come there’s evil? C. How come people use faith to come to believe in different Gods?

When they fail to answer those, or any other possible question covering every inch of the Bible, all of theological thought since Tertullian, and adequately explain every atrocity committed by anyone who had ever even seen a Bible, then pounce on them for their foolish ignorance of the issues, and ask them, "Are you sure you're in the right room? This is for intellectual debate."

10. Miscellaneous questions they might ask: A. How did the first nucleic acid molecule replicate? B. What is the nature of the universe as a whole? C. How come different scientists using logic don't all agree?

When you fail to answer those, or any other question that probes beneath your carefully constructed shell of memorized slogans and automatic catchphrases, then pounce on them for foolishly assuming that one man can account for every little thing. Insist that you don't have to know about all the evidence, you can trust the scientists because they aren't a bunch of ignorant liars like the priests. (---correction, instead of saying "priests" say "boy molesting priests")

11. Pretend they asked something else and answer that. Or ignore them. Or respond to a reply of theirs awhile back and show how he has contradicted himself, you, the universe, etc. By the time he's through explaining, the question is over. If he brings it up again, scream loudly about the incessant harping on non-issues of these dullard Christians, or claim that you won't answer it again when it's been so thoroughly covered.

12. Finally, when all else fails, refuse to answer on the grounds that, "I can't be expected to answer the same hate-filled crap over and over, while you try to ram your sheep god down my throat."

13. ALWAYS REMEMBER: When you are nasty, it is your justifiable frustration at these ignorant, hate-filled Christians who are so different then this peaceful, intellectual community of logicians.

When they are rude, it is always because they are foul hypocrites who don't practice what they preach.

14. Make sure that you point out that the God concept is superfluous given that everything can be explained through natural law and therefore Occam’s razor rules it out. If the xians respond by pointing out that concept of God explains many aspects of the universe and human experience far more eloquently and parsimoniously than naturalism, point out to them that there is no reason that we should expect the universe to make sense to human beings and that humans just invented the idea of God because of their irrational propensity to demand an explanation for the unexplainable.

15. Point out that science, unlike dogmatic and rigid xianity, is subject to change and modification over time. Make sure that you also point out the fact that xian doctrines have developed and changed over a period of time showing that they are nothing more than a progression of myths. If the xians ask why atheists place so must trust in the findings of science given that the view of the world they give is constantly shifting, laugh at them and say that they are ignorant of the scientific method. If an xian suggests that perhaps the traditional understanding of a specific doctrine or Biblical passage may not be correct, accuse them of compromising their own faith and point out that “you can make the Bible say anything you want it to.”

16. If an xian attempts to explain a complicated doctrine such as the Trinity, point out to them how ridiculous and convoluted their irrational faith really is. If they then fail to understand some obscure point you are making about quantum mechanics (which, of course, all atheists are experts in even if they flunked high school algebra), laugh at them and point out that they just don’t have what it takes to understand subtle and complicated scientific theories and then bemoan the scientific ignorance xians in general.

17. Whenever a xian refers to mystery, jump all over them and accuse them of coping out. If an xian asks about some aspect of nature that you cannot explain, declare your faith that science will one day find an explanation, but even it doesn’t, that’s just because nature itself is mysterious and that we shouldn’t necessarily expect it to conform to human understanding.

18. Constantly demand evidence & claim you'll believe in xianity if it is shown to be rational, but when any xtians provide any sort of evidence whatsoever, throw them the old "You can believe whatever you want, but don't force your #&$^ on me" line.

19. ALWAYS, and I mean ALWAYS compare the xtian God to fabled creatures such as leprechauns, Santa Claus and pink unicorns.

20. If you don't understand something a xtian has said, say "That statement was incoherent", regardless of how intellectually over-your-head it may have been.

21. Keep raising the burden of proof depending on how many evidences xtians provide. This ensures that we, atheists, never lose, as xtians can never satisfy the burden of proof we set.

-------------------------------------------------

Similarly I would accuse many atheists of being ignoramuses at probabilistic logic…

Tercel

[ April 04, 2002: Message edited by: Tercel ]</p>

BLoggins02

Hey, nobody ever said we were perfect

Notice, most of the things you said are absolutely true... in the Rants, Raves, and Preaching forum. It's hard to take seriously those Christians who drive-by post with standard apologetic crap we've all heard thousands of times before. I'm sure if I were a Christian I wouldn't take an atheist that dropped by the ILJ boards and proclaimed "You are all ignorant morons" very seriously either.

As for your writing style and wit: <img src="graemlins/notworthy.gif" border="0" alt="[Not Worthy]" />

Silent Dave

Tercel--

I find it amusing that you attack my arguments (which, of course, you would not agree with -- God wouldn't like that, would he?) on the basis that it overgeneralizes the theistic position, but then proceed to post something that grossly overgeneralizes the atheists' methodology.

As to the former, of course not every argument will apply to every theist. People who don't believe in the uniformity of nature, for instance, will not be impressed by A. (As for the other specific arguments you mentioned, please let me know when you have something substantial and non-vacuous to say about them.) As a cumulative case, however, these arguments cover pretty much every accepted form of Christian theism there is.

As to the latter, well, one good (?) satire deserves another.


-------------------------

The Christian's Guide To Debating Freethinkers

1) The key rule of thumb in dealing with those who say that Christianity is false or improbable is this: Christianity is true, so it cannot be false or improbable. Simplicity itself.

2) There is only one measuring stick required to determine the truth of any claim: how it compares with the truth of Our Lord Jesus Christ. So if some freethinker dreams up a theory (read: "wild guess") that apparently conflicts with the Word of God, then this egghead has clearly made yet another boneheaded mistake, possibly demonic. See 1. Conversely, when a scientific finding is in harmony with God's Word, then the brave and faithful scientist who has made it should be applauded.

3) Sometimes you make lose track of your previous posts, and the freethinker will accuse you of contradicting statements you made earlier. But since your words are based on the Absolute Divine Truth of God, it stands to reason that they should therefore always be correct. If a contradiction in your words does indeed exist, then it can only be because of your own moral sinfulness -- point out to the freethinker that God is still the Absolute Truth, and pray for forgiveness and guidance.

4) Generally it is is not necessary to have anything to do with logic and reason, the playthings of the infidel. Logical- and reasonable-sounding arguments may impress the freethinker, but the flat fact is that the more illogical and unreasonable you are, the harder it is for freethinkers to refute what you say. Remember that God created logic and reason, and therefore is not constrained by them.

5) When the freethinker tries to put the burden of proof on you, put it right back on them. After all, who is making the extraordinary claim? You, who simply observe the Creator's hand in all things, or the freethinker who, against all logic and reason, denies the very same?

6) When the freethinker asks you to disprove the existence of Zeus, or Krishna, or the IPU, remember that this is childish nonsense -- there is no comparison between the fairy-tale gods of other religions and the Absolute and Divine Truth of Jesus Christ.

7) Set a timetable for yourself as follows; Spend a few days debating with a group of freethinkers, then leave them alone for a week or so. This will give them time to come to terms with the truths you have revealed unto them. Then return to the forum once more and repeat your statements, unchanged, for the benefit of the newcomers.

8) Store your larger arguments in a text file for easy cut-and-pasting into the forum. This is not impolite or bandwidth-wasting -- you are simply trying to reach newcomers and those who still unreasonably accept the truth. So if the freethinkers complain, it can only be because they are uncivilized.

9) More is better. Nothing takes the wind out of your opponent's sails like replying to the smallest query with pages and pages of text. It is best to spend a few hours writing these yourself, but if you lack time or inclination, simply cut-and-paste information that is at least quasi-relevant from other Christian websites.

10) Ask as many obscure questions as possible. If they are truly sincere -- well, since they don't Believe, true sincerity is impossible. But if they wish to maintain the fascade of true sincerity, they will answer each and every single one of your points. If they fail to answer all of your points and questions, victory is yours -- make a note of this, and bring it up as often as you possibly can thereafter.

11) A good tip for Biblical inerrantists: there is no need to bother with ten kilobytes of explanation when a single verse from Scripture will do it for you. Simply post the relevant verse, and then maybe two or three others. John 3:16 and Psalm 14:1 are good all-purpose verses. If the freethinker tries to counter with an argument, simply post the verses again and suggest that he actually read them this time.

12) Don't waste time on spelling and grammar. They are unimportant so long as the Spirit guides you. In fact, you will show everyone how concerned with getting the Message across if you purposely treat spelling and grammar as trivial. Combine a flimsy grasp of English with your own distinctive writing style. If English is not your first language, so much the better.

13) Don't waste time learning anything about the issue you are discussing. See 1.

14) Take advantage of double meanings, hidden meanings and ambiguous meanings in words. Make your words mean whatever you need them to mean at the moment. This is why freethinkers misunderstand you so much: they think you mean one thing, when you actually meant something else. If they can't keep up, that's hardly your fault.

15) Be economical with the truth. Remember what Paul said: "I become all things to all men in order to save." This means that hypocrisy and lying in the service of the Word are perfectly acceptable. What this amouts to is that you can not only ignore conflicting evidence, but you can also make up data on the spot. If you have a dubious argument based on fictional data, it works as long as it sounds good. The ends justify the means.

16) Make liberal references to Christian websites and publications -- these include the IRC, AIG, Dr. Dino, Jack Chick, things you remember from Sunday School, and so on. If the freethinker has to purchase the items to reference, so much the better -- if there's one thing God always needs plenty of, it's money. The freethinker may claim that these items have been discredited, or refuted, or demonstrated to be false. This only means that they have not read (or watched) them.

17) Although physical force is usually frowned upon, there are historical precedents for it. Use your own judgement.

18) Master the art of mental compartmentalization. This is the technique of keeping your knowledge of God's Holy and Divine Word seperate from the secular knowledge that allows you to function in the secular world. For example, although you know that science is clearly mistaken about the processes of radioactive decay (just look at all the carbon dating fiascos!), you would have to assume the opposite is true in the "real world," especially if you build nuclear reactors for a living. It is still comletely wrong, however, and you should switch back to the "Christian Compartment" whenever possible.

19) Don't be afraid of willful ignorance. Why should you waste time trying to learn how the freethinkers lie to themselves? At the same time, accuse freethinkers of being willfully ignorant for not reading the Bible. Many will say they have read it, but this is clearly false -- if they have read it, why don't they believe it?

20) Don't waste time trying to grasp their overly-complicated theories. You have a much simpler one that is obviously true: "Goddidit."

21) Always one-up the freethinkers. For example, if they present 26 arguments for God's nonexistence, you present 36. If you have more arguments than them, you can't possibly be wrong, right? And notice that this Christian's guide is 22 points, whereas the freethinker's guide is only 21. This means you have the better arguments and will be better prepared.

22) Finally, always get the last word in. The person with the last word is always right, right? The best way to do this is to do everything you possibly can to make all the freethinkers killfile you. You can then speak unopposed. If it is impossible to get in the last word, due to the formal structure of a debate or the sheer numbers of the freethinkers around you, then do the following (or the electronic equivalent thereof): squeeze your eyes firmly shut, clamp your hands over your ears, and scream as loud as you possibly can, "IS NOT!! IS NOT!! IS NOT!!"

Dave

Automaton

Now that Tercel is firing links at people, I think it is really time that I got back to writing that refutation of all of Meta's arguments. It was taking a while because I guess Meta's motto is "quantity not quality"... Oh, wait, that's right Tercel, I'm just another nasty atheist bashing the poor defenseless Christians and their rational, well thought-out arguments because of my naturalistic presuppositions.

Automaton

In fact, I'll post a response to Tercel's brief, boring pseudo-criticisms.
That many of the founders of modern science were Christians is absolutely irrelevent to Silent Dave's argument, which stated that the success of methological naturalism in science and the failure of supernatural explanations points to a universe more likely to be metaphysically naturalistic. The founders of modern science were all methodological naturalists, regardless of any spiritual beliefs. Care to answer the actual argument next time around?
More uninteristing pontification from the Christian Think Tank. Why don't you summarize the central arguments of that article in your own words? Or are you unable to do anything other than parrot/endorse someone else's work?
This is a stunningly executed criticism that shows an unparalleled depth of reasoning and understanding.
Another astounding critique! This amounts to nothing more than petty pleading. You dismiss the atheistic argument off hand simply because theists thought of it first.
No.
This is worse than your pleading about Silent Dave's cosmological argument! The phrase, "No matter how many times a lie is repeated it will never become the truth" springs to mind.
So far, all you've done is ranted about how "silly" it is and personally attacked atheists.

Tercel

No doubt.
I keep meaning to get started myself doing some thorough write-ups of some of the arguments but I keep getting distracted by interesting looking threads on this forum.

Well I wasn't going to comment. But now that you mention it...

Tercel

The worrying thing is that much of it is true outside the Rants, Raves and Preaching forum. The most common response of Christians I have seen read it is "It's so funny because it's true".

As much as I'd love to claim it my own work, none of it was actually written by me. (I don't know who wrote the first half, and the second half is a combination of suggestions by various Christian friends who were inspired by reading the original)

Tercel

No doubt. I'll merely answer your objections to my objection to (A).

I believe the pertinent point I'm making here is that methological naturalism does not entail metaphysical naturalism. (Since metaphysical supernaturalists can and did/do believe that methological naturalism should succeed)
Hence the success of methological naturalism in the realm of Science should in no way be equivicated as evidence for metaphysical naturalism.

hezekiah jones

(It's refreshing to see methodological naturalism granted "success" in the realm of science. Presumably it would be granted a greater degree of success were methodological naturalism allowed to incorporate methodological supernaturalism à la Plantinga.)

By the unrecognized term "equivicated" one might assume you're suggesting the construction of a biconditional involving methodological and metaphysical naturalism? Hard to say.

Anyway, no additional "evidence" for metaphysical naturalism is required further to observations of the natural world, gained, as you've conceded, by methodological naturalism.

So your statement is rather odd; actually, it appears to be essentially meaningless. Or are those the types of statement to which the designation "properly basic" refers?