When Atheists Can't Think Episode 1: No Evidence for God?

[Crossless2.0]

Just lucky, I suppose.

In my defense, I have half a dozen or so high speed crashes from my mid-20s, when I used to endurance race motorcycles.

And no, I didn't mischaracterize the arguments. I only simplified them for the sake of satire. I felt that's all they deserved. Despite my tone, I have read and familiarized myself with all of those arguments (and more), both while I was a Christian and after I left faith behind. As I said, it's possible to clean up a few of those into decent arguments--whoever wrote that needs a good editor--but the fact remains that none of those are proofs or even evidence for a deity.

We need to be clear about the nature of the game Delicate is playing, aside from the delight he/she takes in being a douche. Plantinga and his ilk assert that belief in "God" is basic in much the same way that belief in other minds is basic, i.e., that one is not irrational for believing either position even if one is unable to rationally demonstrate them (what the connecting thought between belief in God and rejection of solipsism may be escapes me -- but no matter). So that list of "arguments" is superfluous for purposes of determining whether belief is "rational" or not. By embracing Plantinga, Delicate has already asserted by fiat that it is.

The arguments that follow aren't really meant to prove anything or even provide evidence as the word is usually understood. It's more of a cumulative case that you're either predisposed to accept as largely true (as the Protestant thinkers toiling in Plantinga's wake do) or you're not, in which case the entire edifice will appear ridiculously weak. The reason it's pointless to pursue knocking down each argument in turn -- at least as it applies to Delicate -- is that when you're done, you're still going to be left with a person who crows that belief in God is basic, i.e., not irrational -- even if that's all he has left of his "argument".

It's a waste of time.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Between taking those tests and today, did you hit your head at some time?

How else can you expect to mischaracterize an argument so badly?

So, like, can we ever expect you to understand the difference between an insult and an argument? Because grandstanding ad hominems do not a cogent point make.

The short answer is "No". You may as well expect rosebuds from a clamshell.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Just lucky, I suppose.

In my defense, I have half a dozen or so high speed crashes from my mid-20s, when I used to endurance race motorcycles.

And no, I didn't mischaracterize the arguments. I only simplified them for the sake of satire. I felt that's all they deserved. Despite my tone, I have read and familiarized myself with all of those arguments (and more), both while I was a Christian and after I left faith behind. As I said, it's possible to clean up a few of those into decent arguments--whoever wrote that needs a good editor--but the fact remains that none of those are proofs or even evidence for a deity.

We need to be clear about the nature of the game Delicate is playing, aside from the delight he/she takes in being a douche. Plantinga and his ilk assert that belief in "God" is basic in much the same way that belief in other minds is basic, i.e., that one is not irrational for believing either position even if one is unable to rationally demonstrate them (what the connecting thought between belief in God and rejection of solipsism may be escapes me -- but no matter). So that list of "arguments" is superfluous for purposes of determining whether belief is "rational" or not. By embracing Plantinga, Delicate has already asserted by fiat that it is.

The arguments that follow aren't really meant to prove anything or even provide evidence as the word is usually understood. It's more of a cumulative case that you're either predisposed to accept as largely true (as the Protestant thinkers toiling in Plantinga's wake do) or you're not, in which case the entire edifice will appear ridiculously weak. The reason it's pointless to pursue knocking down each argument in turn -- at least as it applies to Delicate -- is that when you're done, you're still going to be left with a person who crows that belief in God is basic, i.e., not irrational -- even if that's all he has left of his "argument".

It's a waste of time.

A man afraid to question his own premises will never change his own mind.

[Cyberman]

I bet Episode 2 is the same thing with a different title.

Episode 1- The Phantom Evidence
Epidode 2 - Attack of the Clowns
Episode 3 - Revenge of the Shit
Episode 4 - A Forlorn Hope
Episode 5 - The Entire Shite's Back
Episode 6 - Return of the Dead Guy
Episode 7 - The Farce Awakens

[Bob Kelso]

Ah, same ol' Delicate song and dance.

Massive pile of shit for an OP.
Grandstanding, inflammatory responses.

Check and check. Now cue the blowing of the metaphorical load while s/he claps him/herself on the back for having a jolly good masturbatory session in front of the funhouse mirror of ego.

[Cyberman]

There's a lot of traumatising imagery there. I'm hoping careful application of vodka to the affected area will help.

[Bob Kelso]

I live to serve.

[Thumpalumpacus]

The "credible" part leaves room for these intellectually dishonest conmen to move the goalposts. You won't see a prior, coherent, rigorous definition of credible from them, which they will consistently apply to their claims.

You won't see a prior definition of "god" that makes sense from theists, yet you're not complaining about that. If you care this much about intellectual honesty, perhaps you should show some yourself.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Delicate actually thinks that believing in gawd makes a person superior.  Delicate doesn't need to pay attention to things like logic.  Delicate has an imaginary friend.  That makes Delicate better and smarter than all of us.   Delicate just gets off on insulting people . . . it feeds the enormous ego.  As I said in another post, trying to get ANY explanation past that mind-numbing fog is about as worthwhile as trying to nail jello to the wall.  You guys keep at it, I'm done.

You meant to say "I am of inferior intellect and know nothing about religion (despite working in a church), and so I will run away before the mighty genius of Holy Delicate.", I'm sure. Clearly.

I'll settle for "Delicate's a cunt".

[robvalue]

Atheism to me is a simple reaction to a claim about reality, or more accurately a pre-emptive stance against popular "God" claims.

Other than scientific interest, why should I care if there is a god? Still waiting for anyone to answer that.

If it turns out there is one, whether or not its existence should have been obvious, I'll carry on as before. So why all the fuss? Why is establishing its existence so important to some people? Is it just trying to say, "I'm not crazy, I really am talking to a real thing"? If it's obvious to you, then great.