Exposing the Intellectual Bankruptcy of Atheists Criticizing Religion

[Angrboda]

When the conclusion of an ontological argument is all you have to say that a God exists, it's impossible to tell whether or not this conflicts with reality because there is no other evidence.

Are you suggesting that the Pythagorean theorem must be empirically verified before it can be accepted as true? Clearly that is not the case. Physical measurements, no matter how precise, only yield approximate values, not the absolute values that define mathematical results. The truth of the theorem does not rely on ‘other’ evidence nor is other evidence necessary.

There are multiple proofs of the Pythagorean theorem that show conclusively that it is valid. Are you seriously comparing mathematical theorems to ontological arguments?

http://jwilson.coe.uga.edu/emt668/emt668...orean.html

[Neo-Scholastic]

Name three facts about the world not subject to sensory verification, please.

1) Nothing can both exist and not exist in all ways
2) Each thing is the same as itself and different from another.
3) Something either exists or it doesn't.
4) Out of nothing, nothing comes.

Should I go on?

[robvalue]

Pure mathematics is entirely abstract, there is no requirement or indeed guarantee that it will in any way correlate with reality.

As it happens, much of it does correlate well with reality; at least closely enough to give results that are suitably accurate for the task at hand. But for example with Pythagorus' Theorom, it is dealing with a purely theoretical perfectly formed triangle. It makes no claim that such a thing actually exists in reality.

[Thumpalumpacus]

You should probably read up on quantum mechanics, Chad. It refutes all three claims.

But yes, do go on.

[Minimalist]

The stand taken by Esquilax against the 5W and his reasons for opposing them demonstrates that for many, no form of evidence would ever suffice.

Oh, fuck off Chad.  If your 'god' wanted to prove himself I'm sure he could manage it.  The bigger question then would become not, does he exist, but is such a (as depicted in your precious bible) petty, murderous, vindictive, being worthy of "worship."

Since you can't establish existence the rest of it does not matter.  Get back to me if you ever find real evidence.

[Whateverist]

Name three facts about the world not subject to sensory verification, please.

1) Nothing can both exist and not exist in all ways
2) Each thing is the same as itself and different from another.
3) Something either exists or it doesn't.
4) Out of nothing, nothing comes.

Should I go on?

#4 is suspect and raises more questions than it answers.  Most importantly, what do you mean by "nothing", how does that compare to what others intend by "nothing", and, was there ever truly "nothing"?

[GrandizerII]

Name three facts about the world not subject to sensory verification, please.

1) Nothing can both exist and not exist in all ways
2) Each thing is the same as itself and different from another.
3) Something either exists or it doesn't.
4) Out of nothing, nothing comes.

Should I go on?

1 and 3 are equivalent. Nevertheless, quantum mechanics seem to tell us otherwise.

2 may be true logically, but in the real world, this may pose certain practical issues regarding identity and the self.

4 is logically true.

[Ravenshire]

he has hardened himself against reason

So glad that you can so exactly and incisively determine what is going on in another's head via the medium of an internet message board.

[Neo-Scholastic]

You should probably read up on quantum mechanics, Chad. It refutes all three claims.

But yes, do go on.

“What the (Bleep) Do You Know.” Since its discovery, quantum mechanics has been used to justify the claims of New Age hucksters, so-called non-dualists, proponents of idealism, and various mystical beliefs. Disagreements of interpretation abound. This doesn’t not make you wrong; it only means that you should take pause before making pronouncements about what QM research does and does not reveal. As a layman, I have only a basic understanding of it; the physics classes I took as an architect only touched on the basics. While I follow with interest more recent discoveries like quantum erasure and retro-causality, I generally steer clear of relying on the findings of natural science to inform metaphysical issues. Doing so puts the cart before the horse.

Fortunately it doesn’t take an advanced degree in physics to recognize the incoherence of the self-refuting position you have taken. The findings of all natural science inquiries, including QM, presuppose the fundamental principles I listed. If the results of a QM experiment were to invalidate the first principles of its own inquiry then its own results are invalidated.

That leaves open the question of what to make of quantum oddities and puzzles. Nothing prevents the existence of contraries in a particular provided they are not contrary in the same respect. For example suffering is contrary to joy and yet an athlete can suffer greatly during a marathon and still experience the joy of achievement. I am not suggesting that I know how to apply that idea to any one quantum puzzle. I only bring it up to suggest how such puzzles can be resolved without falling into self-refutation.

[Mister Agenda]

The image used in the beginning already proves what a joke the article is to follow.



Most atheists have read the bible, for most of us were raised in religious institutions.  Even many atheists never introduced to religion in their lives, except to be taught as the myth it is by their parents, have also read the bible.

I find that's a myth. Many atheists like to claim to be ex-Christians, but they don't have even the basic rudimentary knowledge of religion and end up attacking strawmen.

As the rest of the article will illustrate quite amusingly.

How do you find that it's a myth? What's your sample size out of the total number of atheists?

I was a devout Pentecostal, spoke in tongues, read the Bible cover-to-cover twice; and the NT more times than I can recall. However, I suspect that you would find that I don't have even the basic rudimentary knowledge of religion because I didn't happen to belong to one of the sects you're most familiar with. I'd like to be wrong about that, though.