Feed on Posts or Comments 22 December 2014

Christianity Thomas on 01 Mar 2012 12:46 am

The problem with Richard Dawkins’s Agnosticism

In the last post we discussed Richard Dawkins’s agnosticism. The first comment on the post calls Dawkins’s position intellectually honest. But is it honesty or waffling? Consider these three points:

First there is this comment about Santa:

I know with certainty that Santa does not exiat. Why? Because there are claims about Santa that are provably untrue.

Same for God. There are many claims about God that are provably untrue. Many other claims are contradictory, meaning impossible. If Richard Dawkins cannot see something that obvious he is not thinking clearly.

Dawkins says that “reason alone could not propel one to total conviction that anything definitely does not exist.” But that is not true. We know with certainty that the Santa described in popular culture – a man living at the North Pole, manufacturing toys and distributing them world wide via flying reindeer, etc. – does not exist. Reason alone does in fact propel one to total conviction that Santa definitely does not exist. A flight over the North Pole confirms it. A survey of the toys received by poor children on Christmas morning confirms it. There are many ways to understand that Santa is imaginary.

Second there is the problem of infinity. If it is true that “reason alone could not propel one to total conviction that anything definitely does not exist,” then one must entertain the possibility of existence of anything anyone dreams up. A murderer walks into court and claims that a perfect doppelganger of him beamed down from an alien spaceship committed the crime and he is therefore innocent. Must we now entertain this proposition? Of course not. Lacking any evidence, we dismiss the imaginary aliens. The rule is: if you have no evidence, we do not have to consider your fairies.

Third, the fact that we entertain and provide harborage for any belief in God, even though God is clearly imaginary, means we have to put up with insane people spouting off about this imaginary being at every turn. Rick Santorum and Rick Perry are cases in point, and there are millions more like them. Think of all the suffering experienced by slaves, women, “witches”, people of different faiths, gays, etc. because we allow the belief in an imaginary God to fester.

Dawkins is not being intellectually honest. Santa is certainly imaginary. God is certainly imaginary. We should state this clearly, and treat those who believe in imaginary beings accordingly.

100 Responses to “The problem with Richard Dawkins’s Agnosticism”

  1. on 01 Mar 2012 at 5:32 pm 1.Steve said …

    Are you sure with 100% certainty that the accused murderer doesn’t have an extraterrestrial doppelganger? Are you sure that Santa doesn’t just operate in “mysterious ways” and the stories of him that we can disprove are simply misinterpreted?

    Of course those things are almost infinitely unlikely but the possibility, as slight as it is, can’t be known for sure. It is intellectually honest to admit you could be wrong even if you probably aren’t.

  2. on 01 Mar 2012 at 5:54 pm 2.DPK said …

    Your analogy to Santa and the the murdered is certainly valid for the christian god of the Bible, or the Islamic god of the Qur’an, but I think Dawkins is being far more liberal in his allowance for the 0.1% uncertainty he is admitting to. The vague notice of a “creative force” not pigeonholed into a specific religion or personal god, is a much more nebulous concept not as easily disproved as Santa. I think Dawkins is simply being academically honest in stating that “on a scale of 1 to 7, I’m a 6.9″ Meaning he is simply honestly stating that it is not possible to claim to “know” that which by definition is “unknowable”.
    I doubt however, the Archbishop of Canterbury, despite his very academic looking eyebrows, would be inclined to be so honest and forthright. Bravo to Dawkins for being the better person!

  3. on 01 Mar 2012 at 6:41 pm 3.Gordon said …

    You continue to conflate knowledge and belief. This is a mistake. In the murderer’s trial, you belief his claim that the alien did the deed is false but you have no evidence that proves this claim false. When Dawkins states he believes God does not exist but he is not certain God does not exist, he is being rational about the fact that any induction is potentially fallible. For you to demand that Dawkins be certain on this point simply reflects that you think you are certain on this point which is a delusion.

    Here is a test for you. I give you God with only 2 characteristics, 1) supernatural, 2)First Cause creator of the Universe. Can you proof with certainty that this God does not exist? I don’t think you can.

    So that you do not make some mistake about what I believe, I am an atheist that does not believe in the existence of any God(s). I am a 6.9…..9 with as many 9s as you would like to put behind that 6. but I am not a 7.0. I find no proof that makes for certainty that no God(s) exist. As for the Christian God, I am a 7.0. I am certain the Christian God does not exist.

  4. on 01 Mar 2012 at 7:10 pm 4.alex said …

    “Are you sure with 100% certainty that the accused murderer doesn’t have an extraterrestrial doppelganger?”

    This is idiotic. That’s why it doesn’t work in courts. That’s why it doesn’t work when you argue that you bombed the clinic because of god. Infinity is bullshit. You can divide the area of a square by two and you’ll never stop. Does this mean you can’t calculate the area?

    More damn diversions. Your god may infinitely exist, but I’m supposed to be convinced? I’m going to infinity hell? What if all the seats are taken? Just start with the first damned soul and tell everyone to move one seat over.

    Freakin infinity shit.

  5. on 01 Mar 2012 at 7:26 pm 5.gfunkusarelius said …

    This is also a problem with Dawkins being dedicated to communicating scientific integrity. He has to allow for new evidence that can change his mind, and he expresses this when accused of being just as dogmatic as theists. But most people think in simple absolute terms, so it comes off as a weak, waffling position when he makes such statements.

    He usually seems good about putting this in context (pointing out how ridiculous the claims are, how untestable they are and/or how much evidence would be required), but it usually gets pulled out of context or people just don’t care. All they really want is that tiny crack in the door and they proclaim victory.

  6. on 01 Mar 2012 at 8:32 pm 6.DPK said …

    And remember, the legal burden for guilt is “beyond a reasonable doubt”, not “beyond ANY doubt.”
    Those are 2 very different standards. It is honest to say one is convinced god does not exist beyond a reasonable doubt, while allowing that “any and all doubt” can never really be eliminated.

  7. on 01 Mar 2012 at 8:36 pm 7.RC said …

    “He usually seems good about putting this in context (pointing out how ridiculous the claims are, how untestable they are and/or how much evidence would be required)”

    I could respect that although he believes in abiogenesis and cannot explain how evolution began but claims that macroevolution is now fact. Untestable and not falsifiable and therefore not real science.

    Read the God Delusion and you find he is really interested in being an amateur theologian although quite a poor one.

  8. on 01 Mar 2012 at 9:20 pm 8.DPK said …

    “he is really interested in being an amateur theologian although quite a poor one.”

    I suspect the qualities that would make one a “good” theologian are rather like the qualities that would make one a good astrologer or alchemist.

    Is evolution science?? Of course it is.
    http://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/is-evolution-science/

  9. on 01 Mar 2012 at 10:17 pm 9.joe said …

    I agree with #2 and #4. The specific claims that Christianity, Islam or “Santa-ism” can be disproved because these ideologies make empirical claims. But to disprove an abstract, infinite entity that we could reasonably call “God” (and that is not just some powerful species from some alien planet) seems to be pretty impossible to me.

  10. on 01 Mar 2012 at 10:19 pm 10.joe said …

    Sorry, this was meant to read “the specific claims OF Christianity …”

  11. on 02 Mar 2012 at 12:05 am 11.Burebista said …

    This link is why no individual with any self-respect should be a liberal or it’s brother in crime atheist. Language and hate like this is unforgivable. Such hate saddens me and proves the teachings of Christ to be true.

    http://campaign2012.washingtonexaminer.com/blogs/beltway-confidential/liberals-celebrate-death-andrew-breitbart/403471

  12. on 02 Mar 2012 at 12:28 am 12.Methodissed said …

    As I commented on your last post, you need to study epistemology. Further, your Santa example is a false analogy, i.e., a logical fallacy.

    Seriously man, rather than trying to justify your last post, how about doing your homework? You don’t know what the hell you’re talking about.

  13. on 02 Mar 2012 at 1:30 am 13.Steve said …

    “‘Are you sure with 100% certainty that the accused murderer doesn’t have an extraterrestrial doppelganger?’
    This is idiotic. That’s why it doesn’t work in courts. That’s why it doesn’t work when you argue that you bombed the clinic because of god.”

    I’m not sure if you think I’m religious or if you’re just making a general statement.

    Mr. Dawkins claim to being ever-so-slightly agnostic to a broadly defined “god like something or other” is a philosophical technicality. Dawkins is being intellectually honest because otherwise he’d be dogmatic.

    Burebista: Really? The fact that some people are being immature proves that your specific god exists?

  14. on 02 Mar 2012 at 1:34 am 14.DPK said …

    This link is why no individual with any self-respect should be a conservative or it’s brother in crime christian. Language and hate like this is unforgivable. Such hate saddens me and proves the teachings of god is hateful.
    http://www.godhatesfags.com/bible/God-hates.html

  15. on 02 Mar 2012 at 3:37 am 15.ReligionIsStupid said …

    10.DPK and these links shows why no individual with any self-respect should be a follower of Christianity.

    The torture and murder of a child during an exorcism by Christians, even though it as commanded in their bible, is unforgivable.

    Exodus 22:18 Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live

    Such hate saddens me and proves that the teachings of the Christian religion are dangerous, barbaric, and hateful.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-17040111

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2108961/Barbaric-torture-83-children-branded-witches-Boy-beaten-exposes-crime-fuelled-medieval-beliefs.html

  16. on 02 Mar 2012 at 4:18 am 16.Fil Salustri said …

    You’ll have a hard time finding an academic atheist who will that he knows with 100% certainty that there is no ‘thing’ somewhere that is god. In science, all one really has is at best a preponderance of evidence, but that doesn’t mean some new data will come to light in the future that will require developing a new understanding.

    Yes, there is a preponderance of evidence that none of the gods that humans have invented so far actually exist. And that can completely justify a _belief_ that there are no gods – period. But that evidence doesn’t make it 100% certain that there are no gods. It doesn’t matter how small the probability of error may be, it will never be 0. (Unless we manage to completely reinvent how we perceive the universe some day.)

    Sorry, but there’s nothing dishonest about Dawkins’s position.

  17. on 02 Mar 2012 at 5:21 am 17.Gordon said …

    The evidence does not support your claim that “Dawkins is not being intellectually honest”. Dawkins continuously states that he does not believe in the existence of any God(s). Your complaint is that Dawkins does not claim that he knows for certain that there is no God. Claiming that you know for certain that God does not exist requires that you are able to prove God does not exist. I am not aware of any reputable philosopher or scholar who is willing to make such a claim of knowledge. Potentially you are making the claim that you know “God is certainly imaginary” and your critique of Dawkins is because he will not express the same degree of knowledge. Dawkins, like you, believes that God is imaginary. Where you differ is that you declare that you know God does not exist while Dawkins is unwilling to make such a knowledge claim.

    Since you seem to claim that you know God(s) do not exist it should be easy for you to provide the proof for this knowledge claim. Here is a God with only two characteristics: 1) supernatural and 2) First Cause creator of the Universe. Assuming you can prove that this God does not exist, you will be the first human being to ever accomplish this proof. In a thousand years your name will be remembered with the names of Plato, Socrates, Nietzsche and Kant. If you cannot prove the non-existence of this God then you will be exactly like Dawkins with the belief that no God(s) exist but without the ability to state certain knowledge that no God(s) exist. Enjoy.

  18. on 02 Mar 2012 at 12:18 pm 18.Boz said …

    “Yes, there is a preponderance of evidence that none of the gods that humans have invented so far actually exist.”

    Well this is curious news. Give me the preponderance of evidence that the God of Abraham does not exist.

  19. on 02 Mar 2012 at 12:22 pm 19.Boz said …

    Burebesta

    Idiots who celebrate the death of a man with four kids and a wife because of his politics prove to me evolution has not worked.

  20. on 02 Mar 2012 at 1:37 pm 20.alex said …

    14.Boz said …

    “Give me the preponderance of evidence that the God of Abraham does not exist”.

    You are an idiot. This has been discussed ad nauseam. Evidence that the tooth fairy doesn’t exits? gtfooh.

  21. on 02 Mar 2012 at 1:46 pm 21.Lou (DFW) said …

    14.Boz said …

    “Idiots who celebrate the death of a man with four kids and a wife because of his politics prove to me evolution has not worked.”

    Who cares? Who appointed you as arbiter of anything?

    But, because you clam that your imaginary god created everything, then he also created evolution. Now you claim that “evolution has not worked.” If so, then take it up in prayer with your imaginary god. Ask him to create an evolution that “works.” Get back to us with his answer.

  22. on 02 Mar 2012 at 1:50 pm 22.Lou (DFW) said …

    13.Boz said …

    “Well this is curious news.”

    “Give me the preponderance of evidence that the God of Abraham does not exist.”

    Simple – there is absolutely no evidence for your imaginary god. Therefore, ANY evidence that he doesn’t exist is a “preponderance of evidence that the God of Abraham does not exist.”

    Let’s start with he never answers prayers as claimed. Then there’s that bit about healing, but he NEVER heals amputees.

  23. on 02 Mar 2012 at 1:53 pm 23.Lou (DFW) said …

    14.Boz said …

    “Idiots who celebrate the death of a man with four kids and a wife because of his politics prove to me evolution has not worked.”

    He had “four kids and a wife because of his politics?”

  24. on 02 Mar 2012 at 2:06 pm 24.Anonymous said …

    “Well this is curious news. Give me the preponderance of evidence that the God of Abraham does not exist”

    The God of abraham does not exist without the bible. God supposedly wrote the bible, and it is the only book that describes god.

    The bible is wrong in hundreds of ways, even though a perfect and all-knowing god wrote it.

    Therefore, the god of the bible does not exist.

  25. on 02 Mar 2012 at 2:14 pm 25.alex said …

    He had “four kids and a wife because of his politics?”

    true dat and prolly mo on da way. catholic.

  26. on 02 Mar 2012 at 5:54 pm 26.DPK said …

    And let’s not forget… athesits didn’t kill him… apparently your god did that? I mean, wife and 4 kids??? If god didn’t want him dead, he’s be alive.. right? You should be glad he dropped dead, because it is part of god’s plan, isn’t it??
    D

  27. on 03 Mar 2012 at 5:03 am 27.Jim said …

    I would love to see this blog on Google +! Monicks is there and we’re having great discussions. We’re tough on flames and trolls in our evolving culture. So far it is more high end than anyone expected. G+ is more of a collection of blog type posts. Not at all like Facebook.

  28. on 03 Mar 2012 at 8:53 pm 28.Slapnuts McGee said …

    10.DPK…

    EPIC rebuttal!!! Well done!

  29. on 03 Mar 2012 at 9:47 pm 29.a said …

    “apparently your god did that?”

    How can God kill when all life belongs to him to give and take as he desires? Not possible.

    If you consider “Busy Monsters” to be an epic, well then OK.

  30. on 03 Mar 2012 at 10:05 pm 30.alex said …

    “How can God kill when all life belongs to him to give and take as he desires?”

    How can Santa Claus NOT GIVE YOU A PRESENT when you’ve been good. Not possible, moron.

  31. on 03 Mar 2012 at 10:06 pm 31.DPK said …

    How can God kill when all life belongs to him to give and take as he desires? Not possible.

    Ok, that doesn’t even make sense. Are you saying god CANNOT kill? Because if you’ve read the bible, clearly that is incorrect. If you are saying it is not WRONG for god to kill because “all life belongs to him”.. well ok, then you agree with me that god wanted Mr. Breitbart dead.. so what’s the problem? I wasn’t complaining that god killed Mr. Breitbart… I was simply responding to Burbesta’s outrage at those who did not express what he felt was the appropriate level of respect at his passing.
    Apparently “a” missed the point entirely, as the theists here often do.
    So, if god gets to give and take life as he desires, we should never feel badly when someone dies, or even is killed or murdered, because it is god’s will. In essence then, you should be glad he dropped dead too, as it is obviously god’s will that he die, and leave a widow and orphan. Also, god apparently wanted his voice silenced, so we can only assume that god did not agree with his particular views, since he went to extraordinary lengths to silence him.

  32. on 03 Mar 2012 at 10:57 pm 32.a said …

    “you should be glad he dropped dead too, as it is obviously god’s will that he die, and leave a widow and orphan.”

    So u & other atheists I assume cannot even feel for those left behind? U think we should cheer and party @ the man’s passing as many bloggers did? Even though it was his time 2 go doesn’t mean the wife and kids don’t miss’em.

    How heartless and thoughtless. I didn’t realize atheists were so hateful

    “Naked came I out of my mother’s womb, and naked shall I return thither: the Lord gave, and the Lord hath taken away; blessed be the name of the Lord” (Job 1:21)

  33. on 03 Mar 2012 at 11:53 pm 33.DPK said …

    Not at all. I never said that… YOU were the one who said it was god’s will for him to die.
    Don’t YOU want god’s will to be done??
    You are such a conflicted mess….
    You love your god… your god decides to kill this man, and you are sad… don’t you see that makes no sense at all.
    I think it’s tragic that he died and left behind a wife and small children. To me, that is evidence that there IS no loving god watching over him, or anyone else.I didn’t cheer and party, just like I bet you don’t picket at the funerals of fallen soldiers with signs that say “thank god for dead soldiers”, like your fellow christians do. But, at the same time, if you believe in god’s will, you HAVE to believe that god WANTED those soldiers killed.. right?
    You need to figure out which side you are on… because you seem to be against god and against atheists.
    I know, I know, it’s so HARD being a christian and maintaining your faith in the face of soooo many obvious and glaring contradictions.
    About time for Hor or one of his sock monkeys to bounce back and bring up evolution again, I predict.

  34. on 04 Mar 2012 at 1:21 am 34.Mitch said …

    a,

    They only have sympathy for their own. Their hate is that deep unfortunately. We need to pray they will accept Christ and remove the hate.

  35. on 04 Mar 2012 at 2:10 am 35.alex said …

    “We need to pray they will accept Christ and remove the hate”.

    We need to pray they will accept Allah and remove the hate. dumbass.

  36. on 04 Mar 2012 at 3:25 am 36.DPK said …

    “Maybe we’re not so different after all”
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X-4IpgmyU8k&feature=related

  37. on 05 Mar 2012 at 6:20 am 37.Severin said …

    24 A
    “How can God kill when all life belongs to him to give and take as he desires?”

    How does god “take lives”?
    I would call it killing.
    I don’t know any other way to take someone’s life but by killing him/her.

  38. on 06 Mar 2012 at 5:07 pm 38.inthemiddle said …

    sorry, but have to address the very obvious flaw in the logic that because some mythical God doesn’t cause amputees to spontaneously regenerate their limbs (through prayer or otherwise), then there is no God… but where or why would anyone believe that spontaneous regeration is the only acceptable method of delivery? Perhaps the prayer is answered via limb prosthetic? or some other compensatory life skill/purpose/drive/focus, etc… I don’t say that to show that it IS proof of a God, but merely to demonstrate that it is arrogant and a bit ignorant to think that any of us are at liberty to define the absolute construct of how a prayer might be answered…

    To that end, Dawkins is more intellectually honest than the posit of this site. In the absence of absolute evidence, there may be a possibility (however slight) that God does exist.
    Whether you believe in the Bible or subscribe to any other ‘religious’ faith, it is still intellectually honest to acknowledge the possibile existence of a higher power.

  39. on 06 Mar 2012 at 5:35 pm 39.DPK said …

    Look at it this way. No one has claimed that “God doesn’t cause amputees to spontaneously regenerate their limbs (through prayer or otherwise), then there is no God”… rather they have cited THAT particular contradiction, in cohort with dozens or hundreds of other “problems” with the idea of an omnipotent, omniscient, all loving god as EVIDENCE that such a being does not actually exist.
    You can’t honestly say that because you didn’t get the bike you wanted for xmas, then Santa does not exist. You could rationalize all kinds of excuses as to why perhaps Santa didn’t deliver. Maybe you weren’t as good as you should have been. Maybe Santa knew you weren’t ready for a bike. Maybe he didn’t have enough to go around and had to give the bikes out first come, first served. Maybe Santa plans to give you an even BETTER bike, next year.
    But, when you look at that ALONG with all the other signs… the fact that there is in fact, no Santa’s Village at the north pole. The fact that reindeer cannot in fact, fly. The fact that it is physically impossible for one person to visit every house in the world in one night… it then becomes pretty obvious that there is no Santa. Is it proved conclusively? Of course not. Santa, like god, is defined to be magical and not provable.
    The problem is not so much that god won’t heal amputees in particular, but that god, who is defined as being all powerful, never does ANYTHING that does not also have a non-supernatural explanation. In other words, could happen without needing a god to intervene.
    God supposedly cures cancer all the time… but we know that medicine can cure cancer too, and sometimes cancers go into remission by themselves.
    But god never regrows limbs.
    Saw last night news footage of a “miracle” in Ohio, I think. Cell phone footage of a lady praying a tornado out of the path of her house. She prayed and prayed that god would move the tornado, and low and behold, the tornado changed path, her house was spared… but all her neighbors’ homes were reduced to kindling and 30 some people were killed. Don’t you think the majority of those people prayed to god too?
    Is it a miracle when you pray to god to spare YOU at the expense of your neighbor and his family?

  40. on 06 Mar 2012 at 5:35 pm 40.Anonymous said …

    33.inthemiddle

    You need to understand that the Bible (which God supposedly wrote)(and which many Christians therefore claim to be inerrant) makes specific claims about how God answers prayers. You can see those claims here:

    http://godisimaginary.com/i1.htm

    An amputee, according to the Bible, should be able to get his actual limb back by praying.

    “To that end, Dawkins is more intellectually honest than the posit of this site.”

    No. The God of the Bible is provably imaginary because the Bible is full of errors and contradictions that prove God to be imaginary, just like Santa.

    If Dawkins is talking about some other god or gods besides the God of the Bible, he should call it something else. “God” is the name attached to the Christian God of the Bible. And then Dawkins’ would need to provide evidence for these other gods, which he has in no way done.

  41. on 06 Mar 2012 at 7:03 pm 41.Lou said …

    inthemiddle

    You make some sense, but those who post here regularly make the claim “God does not exist”. When asked for evidence to support this and numerous other claims they provide none.

    The existence of God is no issue for me. But if you are looking proof of prayer or God this is not the place. Read the Bible yourself being itellectually honest. Start with book of John and do your own research. The gii site is nothing but propaganda for atheist.

    Peace

  42. on 06 Mar 2012 at 7:54 pm 42.DPK said …

    “Whether you believe in the Bible or subscribe to any other ‘religious’ faith, it is still intellectually honest to acknowledge the possibile existence of a higher power.”

    I agree to the extent that you acknowledge the extreme difference between “possible” and even remotely likely.

    I would have to acknowledge that it is “possible” that the law of gravity is simply an illusion and that everything in the universe is held together by trillions of tiny invisible angels furiously flapping their wings in unison to keep everything working in such a way as it would appear to be gravity. I would have to acknowledge that it is “possible” that the earth is in fact, only 6 thousand years old and the magical invisible creature who created it also hid clever mountains of evidence simply to trick us into believing that it is actually closer to 4 billion years old.
    Possible, but I’m 99.999999999% certain that is not the case.
    There goes the other Lou again, asking for proof of a negative, while at the same time failing to offer any evidence of the affirmative. They are so fixated on validating their own delusions, it reminds me of the alcoholic who claims everyone else is the problem, not him.

  43. on 06 Mar 2012 at 9:21 pm 43.alex said …

    “it is still intellectually honest to acknowledge the possibile existence of a higher power.”

    intellectually? who’s arguing about the possibility, even though it’s unlikely. i’ve already stated that it’s possible that a god exist. but I challenge any
    christian here to acknowledge the possibility that allah is the true God. but they won’t, because allah has no proof, just like their christian god.

  44. on 06 Mar 2012 at 9:41 pm 44.Lou (DFW) said …

    36.Lou said …

    “But if you are looking proof of prayer or God this is not the place.”

    Most definitely! No theists here ever offer evidence of prayer or their imaginary god.

    “Read the Bible yourself being itellectually honest. Start with book of John and do your own research. The gii site is nothing but propaganda for atheist.”

    The bible is nothing but propaganda for xtians, which is obvious if you’re intellectually honest.

  45. on 06 Mar 2012 at 9:45 pm 45.DPK said …

    “I challenge any
    christian here to acknowledge the possibility that allah is the true God.”

    Alex… have you learned nothing from the ramblings of 40yr old Stan?
    All you need to do to demonstrate the existence of god is accept certain “non-physical axioms”. From there it’s a piece of cake, all you need is then an intuitive personal experience and wham-bam, irrefutable proof based completely on logic.

  46. on 06 Mar 2012 at 10:17 pm 46.alex said …

    “Alex… have you learned nothing from the ramblings of 40yr old Stan?” cool that.

    if i can admit a possibility, however remote, them xtians can do the same thing, no? fair?

  47. on 07 Mar 2012 at 1:46 am 47.Biff said …

    “I challenge any
    christian here to acknowledge the possibility that allah is the true God.”

    This is where atheist always begin to backtrack. They don’t know which God therefore there is no God. It is a fallacy in order not to address the real issue.

    Is there a God? They have already admitted the possibility therefore they cannot be true atheists. A step in the right direction.

  48. on 07 Mar 2012 at 2:08 am 48.alex said …

    “This is where atheist always begin to backtrack. They don’t know which God therefore there is no God.”

    You are an idiot. I already admitted that a god is possible. You say I don’t know which god, therefore I cannot be a true atheist? WTF? Do you know that an atheist is a non believer of Santa Fucking Christ? I’m willing to admit that there’s a remote possibility that that Santa Fucking Christ exist and you’re telling me I’m backtracking because I don’t know whether it’s Santa Fucking Christ or Santa Fucking Allah?

    I’m an atheist and you are a true idiot.

    Using your perverted bible as a test, you think you can pass? Stoned any adulterers lately? BIG FAIL.

    Back on point. Where is your god? In your heart?

  49. on 07 Mar 2012 at 3:24 am 49.Lou (DFW) said …

    42.Biff said …

    “This is where atheist always begin to backtrack. They don’t know which God therefore there is no God. It is a fallacy in order not to address the real issue.”

    This is “where” Hor continues his pathological lying about atheists. “It is a fallacy in order not to address the real issue” – no evidence for his imaginary god.

  50. on 07 Mar 2012 at 6:40 am 50.Severin said …

    42 Biff
    “Is there a God?”

    Why would I care?
    Be honest and, please, answer this question!

    WHY WOULD I CARE?

  51. on 07 Mar 2012 at 3:23 pm 51.DPK said …

    “Is there a God? They have already admitted the possibility therefore they cannot be true atheists. A step in the right direction.”

    As always, Biff attempts to distort reality in an effort his own baseless position. Yes Biff, if an atheist admits to the possibility that there “might” be a god, that makes you seem a little less crazy, right? But you neglect the part where I said I give the “possibility” of god or gods about the same likelihood as their being invisible angels holding the universe together by flapping their wings, instead of gravity, or the “possibility” that the earth, and the rest of the universe, was created, complete and in it’s present form, spontaneously, about 6 thousand years ago. So, for you to call that a “step in the right direction” really shows just how completely desperate for validation you actually are. Tragic, really. But hey… any thing to keep the high going, right Biffer?

  52. on 07 Mar 2012 at 6:23 pm 52.A said …

    Validation? That is like saying we need validation from Iran that the holocaust really happened. Atheist need validating since the prevailing belief by a huge vast large margin is not a lack of belief. You are so funny DPK.

  53. on 07 Mar 2012 at 7:19 pm 53.Lou (DFW) said …

    47.A said …

    “Validation? That is like saying we need validation from Iran that the holocaust really happened.”

    Non sequitur

    “Atheist need validating since the prevailing belief by a huge vast large margin is not a lack of belief. You are so funny DPK.”

    And you are a liar, Hor. Atheists don’t need any validation that god doesn’t exist. What we want from you is “validation” that god EXISTS. But you NEVER, EVER provide it.

  54. on 07 Mar 2012 at 8:02 pm 54.Severin said …

    Can anyone of gentlemen theists answer my simple question:
    Why should I care about existance of god?
    Why should anyone care about it?

  55. on 07 Mar 2012 at 8:19 pm 55.DPK said …

    Because Severin, don’t you realize… the most awesome and powerful intelligence that exists completely outside of the boundaries of time, matter, and energy… the unimaginable limitless and eternal being that created the entire universe and everything in it out of his mere will, the creature that knows everything, past present and future, indeed who has destined everything, past present and future… NEEDS you to believe in him.
    He NEEDS you to not only believe in him, but to love him and worship him. And if you don’t, he is prepared to send you to eternal torment and damnation for ever and ever… an infinity of pain and suffering for the crime of not believing he is real.
    I can’t believe you haven’t been told that already.
    Geez.

  56. on 07 Mar 2012 at 8:26 pm 56.DPK said …

    47.A said …

    Validation? That is like saying we need validation from Iran that the holocaust really happened.

    No, it’s not anything like that at all. How dense are you? It’s like those who jumped on Richard Dawkins’ remarks as signs that he was softening his position on atheism and would soon be being reborn and washed in the blood of the savior… Halleluiah!!
    He meant nothing of the sort and the only conceivable reason for one to make such a ridiculous claim is to try to feel validated.
    So, it’s actually more like Sarah Palin claiming Paul Revere actually DID try to warn the British.
    “Part of his ride was to warn the British that were already there that ‘hey, you’re not going to take American arms, you are not going to beat our own well-armed persons individual private militia that we have.”

    Yeah, ok.

  57. on 08 Mar 2012 at 3:12 am 57.Suh said …

    “Why should I care about existance of god?”

    I think the non-answer is your answer, nobody cares. So let me ask, why should I want to be an atheist?

    A is right. Why does anyone need the validation of anyone on this blog for their belief? That is the height of arrogance. Atheist are such a small minority, why would anyone care what they validate?

    Before they throw out this red herring out, let me add, the majority of people are correct on many things. But you could prove us all wrong with just some simple evidence.

  58. on 08 Mar 2012 at 3:15 am 58.Suh said …

    Does anybody know how Palin and Paul Revere got pulled into the blog?

    Let me call non sequitur in an actual legitimate way here.

  59. on 08 Mar 2012 at 3:21 am 59.DPK said …

    In the same way that Iran and the holocaust got pulled into it. Palin was simply an analogy to explain why that comparison was incorrect. Sorry you couldn’t follow Suh. I try to type slow, but of you can’t keep up, maybe you should keep quiet instead of making a fool of yourself.

    “Why does anyone need the validation of anyone on this blog for their belief? That is the height of arrogance. Atheist are such a small minority, why would anyone care what they validate?”

    And yet.. here you are, again… looking for validation. If you don’t care, why are you here? Y’all are so transparent.
    D

  60. on 08 Mar 2012 at 2:36 pm 60.Lou (DFW) said …

    52.Suh said …

    “I think the non-answer is your answer, nobody cares. So let me ask, why should I want to be an atheist?”

    It’s not a matter of what anybody wants, it’s a matter of what is true.

    “A is right. Why does anyone need the validation of anyone on this blog for their belief?”

    So why do so many theists and their sock-puppets post comments here? They obviously need such validation when their delusion is attacked.

    “That is the height of arrogance.”

    Yes, it is. That is, one imaginary god is the real one and all the others are not.

    “Atheist are such a small minority, why would anyone care what they validate?”

    Then why do theists care so much about what atheists invalidate about their delusion?

    “Before they throw out this red herring out, let me add, the majority of people are correct on many things.”

    I disagree. Throughout history the majority were wrong about most things until a pioneering scientist corrected their misconceptions.

    “But you could prove us all wrong with just some simple evidence.”

    Yes, some simple evidence that god exists. But they NEVER, EVER provide it. The “simple” answer is that there is no such evidence.

  61. on 08 Mar 2012 at 3:01 pm 61.A said …

    “It’s not a matter of what anybody wants, it’s a matter of what is true.”

    What is true Lou?

  62. on 08 Mar 2012 at 5:38 pm 62.Lou (DFW) said …

    56.A said …

    “It’s not a matter of what anybody wants, it’s a matter of what is true.”

    “What is true Lou?”

    In the context of my comment, it makes no difference what’s “true.” My point is that it doesn’t matter what anybody WANTS.

    But what is true is that there’s no evidence of god. Otherwise, please provide it.

  63. on 08 Mar 2012 at 5:45 pm 63.A said …

    It doesn’t matter?

    If what matters is what is true, then what is true seems to be of infinite importance wouldn’t you think?

  64. on 08 Mar 2012 at 6:16 pm 64.Lou (DFW) said …

    58.A said …

    “If what matters is what is true, then what is true seems to be of infinite importance wouldn’t you think?”

    What part of “In the context of my comment” didn’t you understand?

    But, if the truth is that there’s no god, then it really doesn’t matter. If there is a creator/god, then it only matters if it somehow interacts with humans. So far neither you nor anyone else, nor the creator/god has provided any such evidence of that.

    In short, no, it’s not of “infinite importance” when the inevitable outcome is that we all simply cease to exist at the end of our lives.

  65. on 08 Mar 2012 at 10:25 pm 65.A said …

    “the inevitable outcome is that we all simply cease to exist at the end of our lives.”

    So then you believe this to be true?

  66. on 08 Mar 2012 at 11:01 pm 66.Lou (DFW) said …

    60.A said …

    “the inevitable outcome is that we all simply cease to exist at the end of our lives.”

    “So then you believe this to be true?”

    Yes, isn’t that clear?

  67. on 09 Mar 2012 at 1:36 am 67.A said …

    @Lou ““the inevitable outcome is that we all simply cease to exist at the end of our lives.”

    OK, how do you know?

  68. on 09 Mar 2012 at 2:33 am 68.Lou (DFW) said …

    67.A said …

    @Lou ““the inevitable outcome is that we all simply cease to exist at the end of our lives.”

    “OK, how do you know?”

    I don’t “know” it anymore than I “know” that invisible leprechauns don’t exist. But there’s no reason to believe that heaven exists for the same reason that god exists – there’s no evidence or requirement for god or heaven.

  69. on 09 Mar 2012 at 2:58 pm 69.A said …

    “But there’s no reason to believe that heaven exists for the same reason that god exists”

    What would give you reason to believe that God exist? What would this proof look like?

  70. on 09 Mar 2012 at 4:22 pm 70.Anonymous said …

    Such obvious diversions, A. Why don’t YOU tell us why you think that heaven, hell, god, whatever exists? No-one is on the hook here but you.

    Also, please take care to define which of the thousands of different versions of these concepts you believe in. My prediction, you’ll ask another question. Anything not to be forced to show that you have nothing at all to support your fantasy.

  71. on 09 Mar 2012 at 4:43 pm 71.A said …

    Anonymous

    I’m sorry if my questions have made you so angry. Maybe you could tell me what would give you reason to believe that God exists? What would proof/evidence look like for you to believe?

  72. on 09 Mar 2012 at 6:21 pm 72.Anonymous said …

    Here we go again, the sock-puppet plays the game of projection – false accusations of anger and diversions. It’s also common in abusive people such as narcissists and sociopaths.

    All you do here is underline how much your mental illness has robbed you of the ability to think clearly. If you had proof, you’d post it. You don’t, so you try to hang on to your delusion by getting other people to discuss your fantasy as if it actually existed in the real world.

    Heaven, hell, gods? Seriously, you believe in that shit? ROFL.

  73. on 10 Mar 2012 at 3:31 pm 73.Lou (DFW) said …

    69.A said …

    “What would give you reason to believe that God exist? What would this proof look like?”

    Which god do you believe in?

  74. on 10 Mar 2012 at 5:22 pm 74.DPK said …

    “Maybe you could tell me what would give you reason to believe that God exists? What would proof/evidence look like for you to believe?”

    That’s a fair question, and a good one. For me, I suppose he could show up. He could communicate with humanity in a way he supposedly did in the bible stories, performing miracles. I mean, if Jesus where to ride his golden chariot accompanied by host of angels and saints, landed on the white house lawn in full view of TV cameras and eye witnesses and did something like… I dunno, move a mountain like he said any of us could do… spontaneously regenerate amputated limbs, wipe out cancer or something along those lines. That would be plenty for me.
    But, if god is real, CERTAINLY HE knows exactly what he would need to do to cause me believe, right? Why does he play these silly hide and seek games? Why doesn’t he just show up and demonstrate his reality and his power and validate his message?
    I mean, my dad showed his love for me by being around.

  75. on 10 Mar 2012 at 8:00 pm 75.alex said …

    “What would proof/evidence look like for you to believe?”

    …a dubious question. any proof would be suspicious. like i said earlier, as i sit frying in hell for eternity, i would probably admit to the christian god. heh, heh, i’m afraid…whoo whooo.

  76. on 10 Mar 2012 at 8:39 pm 76.Tom said …

    “He could communicate with humanity in a way he supposedly did in the bible stories, performing miracles.”

    This is also an incorrect claim. Jesus performed miracles and the self-righteous of the day still did not believe. Atheist today would claim it is a trick, it is a delusion or they are having flashbacks. They would never accept it as proof and God knows this to be true. He even taught this while on earth.

  77. on 10 Mar 2012 at 8:56 pm 77.Anonymous said …

    So, Tom, you’ve got every avenue covered now, haven’t you? There’s no possible outcome that you won’t interpret as being in your favor.

    Posts like yours are why people call some theists delusional.

  78. on 10 Mar 2012 at 10:30 pm 78.Lou (DFW) said …

    76.Tom said …

    “This is also an incorrect claim. Jesus performed miracles and the self-righteous of the day still did not believe.”

    They weren’t as dumb as we thought.

  79. on 10 Mar 2012 at 11:32 pm 79.DPK said …

    It certainly shouldn’t be beyond the capacity of a god to perform a miracle that would leave no room for doubt or suspicion, now would it? Perhaps if Jesus’ miracles were not believed by many it’s because they weren’t really convincing?
    I mean, I saw David Copperfield make the Statue of Liberty disappear.
    Let’s see though, if I were going to invent a religion in order to control people to do what I wanted, yeah the first thing I’d say is “kill everyone who doesn’t believe.” and the 2nd would probably be, “I predict that some people will doubt my miraculous abilities. Therefore, since I have predicted this, you should not believe them…”
    hahaha… you are all so gullible.
    Really, all he’d have to do is regenerate the legs of an amputee right in front of cameras and witnesses. That would do it for me. See, my mind is open to change. I’ve told you what would convince me god is real, now return the favor and tell us what would convince you that he is NOT. Is there any scenario you can imagine that would lead you to say there is no god? Any at all?

  80. on 11 Mar 2012 at 12:32 am 80.Tom said …

    DPK

    On behalf of humanity, we all are grateful you are not God.

    Yes, all bases are covered because the TRUTH always prevails. In spite of the doubters yesterday and today, He is undeniable. When you truly know God, there is no question.

  81. on 11 Mar 2012 at 1:01 am 81.alex said …

    “On behalf of humanity, we all are grateful you are not God.”

    …but, I am god. disprove it! sound familiar?

  82. on 11 Mar 2012 at 1:20 am 82.alex said …

    “When you truly know yahweh, there is no question.”

    “When you truly know allah, there is no question.”

    “When you truly know ra, there is no question.”

    “When you truly know zeus, there is no question.”

    “When you truly know huitzilopochtli, there is no question.”

    “When you truly know DPK, there is no question.”

    pick.

  83. on 11 Mar 2012 at 2:58 am 83.DPK said …

    “DPK
    On behalf of humanity, we all are grateful you are not God.”

    Well Tom, all I can say is for someone you demands logic of others, that’s the best you can do? You don’t understand the distinction between analogy and logic, you demand we prove negatives, and you make claims about the nature of reality with absolutely no evidence other than to claim that it is “undeniable”. You demand answers to your questions, but provide none to anyone else.
    That’s really pretty fuckin’ lame, and you are the definition of a hypocrite.

  84. on 11 Mar 2012 at 7:05 am 84.Severin said …

    76 Tom
    “They would never accept it as proof and God knows this to be true.”

    Are you crazy?
    Is your god an idiot?

    I would certainly believe there is god if he (she, it?) came to my friend and made his finger grow again.

    I did not say I would worship him or love him, but I would certainly BELIEVE he exists.

    Yet, no sign from him (her, it?)!

  85. on 11 Mar 2012 at 7:09 am 85.Severin said …

    76 Tom
    “They would never accept it as proof and God knows this to be true.”

    You, of course, KNOW what god knows to be true?!

    Are you his lawyer? Special representative? PR agent?

    What makes YOU certain that god exists?

  86. on 11 Mar 2012 at 12:14 pm 86.alex said …

    “You, of course, KNOW what god knows to be true?!
    Are you his lawyer? Special representative? PR agent?”

    of course. every theist is the fucking REP, translator and assistant to the big Dude. theists can take any biblical passage and clarify it for us.

    careful, they will summon those damn bears outta of the woods and fuck you up.

  87. on 11 Mar 2012 at 2:21 pm 87.Lou (DFW) said …

    80.Tom said …

    “On behalf of humanity, we all are grateful you are not God.”

    Yet another theist who is so delusional as tho think that he somehow speaks for “humanity.”

    If there was a god, I would much prefer the god DPK than the maniacal god of the bible.

    “Yes, all bases are covered because the TRUTH always prevails.”

    Except when it doesn’t.

    “In spite of the doubters yesterday and today, He is undeniable.”

    What’s undeniable is the you have absolutely no evidence for your imaginary god.

    “When you truly know God, there is no question.”

    Didn’t Adam and Eve know god? Didn’t Satan know god?

  88. on 11 Mar 2012 at 5:32 pm 88.A said …

    DPK

    And with the F-bomb, you officially lose all respect. It shows you are incapable of using big boy grammar. It must be frustrating.

    Your analogy is also a fallacy because analogies also are defined to mean:

    “that if two things are known to be alike in some respects, then they must be alike in other respects.”

    You still fall under the fallacy of guilty by association.

  89. on 11 Mar 2012 at 6:11 pm 89.alex said …

    “And with the F-bomb, you officially lose all respect”

    says who? you? more diversions?

    respect from who? moron theists, who respect child molesting priests. same morons who won’t allow women priests? i don’t need your fucking respect. fuck fuck fuck.

  90. on 11 Mar 2012 at 6:17 pm 90.Severin said …

    88 A
    “that if two things are known to be alike in some respects, then they must be alike in other respects.”

    Yes!
    Like leather and artificial leather. Like tiger and Tasmanian tiger. Like ball and earth (both are spheres). Like man and chimp (veeeery alike in many respects). Like Hitler and Mother Teresa (both are humans, and really alike in millions of respects).

    Like Christian god and Allah (none of them is real).

    What an idiocy!

  91. on 11 Mar 2012 at 11:05 pm 91.DPK said …

    88.A said …
    DPK
    And with the F-bomb, you officially lose all respect.

    Your respect is not high on the lsit of anything worth having, so ok, whatever.

    Your analogy is also a fallacy because analogies also are defined to mean:
    “that if two things are known to be alike in some respects, then they must be alike in other respects.”

    And your claim is that if two things are shown to be alike in some respects, they they are therefore NOT alike in other respects?

    The idea of presenting an analogy is to demonstrate the similarities of two ideas. So yeah, Santa Claus, Leprechauns, Gods… all figments of human imagination. All defined to posses properties that are impossible. All are things for which no proof of existence is offered other than legend.
    Now, if you care to dispute this and show that the analogy is incorrect because gods are somehow different… we’re waiting for your evidence. Untill you do so, your claim that the analogy is false is just that, a claim. Claims made without evidence can be dismissed without a second thought. Worthless.
    So far all we’ve heard are platitudes and vague allusions to “certainties”, oh and an occasional criticism of someone’s chosen avatar and an scolding for using crude language. When are you going to stop dodging and weaving and tell us what evidence you have that ANY of the claims that you make about the nature of reality are actually true?

  92. on 12 Mar 2012 at 2:02 am 92.A said …

    Analogies are ridiculous fallacies. Let us hit the atheists where it hurts.

    The original theory of evolution supported the theory of “gradualism,” which has supposedly been proven wrong.

    Therefore, any new theory associated with evolution on the macro scale must be wrong too. There you go.

    Anyone who cannot see the the huge difference between God and Santa really are worth dialoging with. My 6 yr old niece knows the difference and I didn’t need to explain it to her.

    alex, I am so impressed with your high brow grasp of the English language. I’m so glad you are an atheist.

  93. on 12 Mar 2012 at 2:12 am 93.DPK said …

    haha… I assume you 6 year old niece also knows the difference between Santa Claus and the tooth fairy. Does that mean the tooth fairy is real?
    By your reasoning it does. How about Zeus, where does stand on belief in him?
    Tell you what, tell her to ask Santa for a new bike this year, and for Jesus to end word hunger. Let her see which one she is likely to get. So, yeah, I guess there IS a difference between Santa and god then, huh?
    I notice your post is curiously lacking any actual evidence that your imaginary god-friend actually exists. Why is that? Again, all you have are platitudes and empty claims.

  94. on 12 Mar 2012 at 2:23 am 94.alex said …

    “alex, I am so impressed with your high brow grasp of the English language.”

    …more diversions, hey look, up in the sky! the cloud looks like the virgin mary! heh, heh. not bad english eh, even though it’s my second language.

    “Anyone who cannot see the the huge difference between God and Santa really are worth dialoging with”

    …let’s nitpick. Who taught you how to write? “really are worth dialoging with”? wtf, ending with a preposition? i don’t recommend it, asshole.

  95. on 12 Mar 2012 at 2:46 am 95.Lou (DFW) said …

    92.A said …

    “Analogies are ridiculous fallacies. Let us hit the atheists where it hurts.”

    The way to do that is to provide evidence of your imaginary god. But you NEVER, EVER do that – fraud.

  96. on 12 Mar 2012 at 2:51 am 96.Lou (DFW) said …

    92.A said …

    “Anyone who cannot see the the huge difference between God and Santa really are worth dialoging with. My 6 yr old niece knows the difference and I didn’t need to explain it to her.”

    The “huge difference” is that children eventually accept that Santa is imaginary, but most adults never accept that god is, too.

  97. on 12 Mar 2012 at 3:13 am 97.DPK said …

    True that.

    “Analogies are ridiculous fallacies.”

    Wow, talk about a blanket statement. I’m glad Mr. A pointed that out for us.
    Um, didn’t Jesus often use analogies in his teaching? I guess that makes him a liar? If all analogies are fallacies, that would seem an unescapable fact.

    Oh wait!!! “Analogies are ridiculous fallacies” is actually a fallacy! Clever theists.. actually inventing “facts” and lying about things in a vain effort to convince people they are right in their unsupported contentions. Who would have ever thought they’d think of something so clever? If the facts don’t suit you just lie about it.

  98. on 12 Mar 2012 at 8:34 pm 98.Boz said …

    ha ha ha, good one A.

  99. on 17 Apr 2012 at 3:04 am 99.Evolution = Perfection/Time said …

    wouldn’t the above equation require an intelligent being with a pre-contemplated notion of ‘perfect’? Evolution is obviously aimed at betterment, so what dictates ‘better’? Nature? So life and nature dual each other for infinity? Hardly seems logical.

  100. on 18 Apr 2012 at 10:44 am 100.Tim said …

    I have never seen such a stupid low thinker as anyone who claims that their is no God or that God is imaginary. This is one of the devil’s trick to win more souls to himsef. If i may ask you mr. Amputee publisher, before you were born which planet did u exist? And when you die and leave this world were are you going to? And if the world is such a perfect place as you said, why ar ur dead grand parents not coming back to say hello and probably ask you for a coffee? Jesus made us to understand that if our eye, hands or legs will make us not 2 enter the kingdom of God that we shud get rid of them. Please stop misleadin people with your misrable pitiable, confused and sorry self. A blind man cannot lead another blind man. If my God can grow leafs and branches, he can also grow an amputated limb. If you think that God is imaginary, why do dream and stil wake up on ur bed in d mornin? Ur imagination should have left you in ur dream land witout wakin up on planet earth. The fact that you woke up means that you woke up into reality of what God have created around you. And as for ur idea of college degree thoughts, they wont help you in the day you will face death. I ave seen Jesus in my vision and he is not an imaginary as u thought. If you believe that their is no God then you can wait till the fire of hell help you burn that brain of yours into believin that God has given us Jesus 2day in other to save us from the world that wil be destroyed soon. You can believe, and u can choose not to believe since ur fleshy pleasures and selfish interest is all you are after in the world. I pray that your knowlege wont trap you down 4d devil in d end. JESUS IS THE WAY! AND HE LIVES FOREVER MORE. (Amen)

Trackback This Post | Subscribe to the comments through RSS Feed

Leave a Reply