I found this here. And I left a note asking for evidence for each of these knowledge claims that Atheists have. They need to demonstrate their objective, material empirical evidence in support of their "knowledge", and logic for their conclusions. We'll see.
13 comments:
Lol Stan you are such a joke. Your whole argument from what I seen on this blog is "God exists, prove me wrong" mixed in with some catholic non-sense about a kid hallucinating then be worshiped for it. With this logic I would say you were a theist all along those 40 years.
About Hitchen's razor. If you dismiss the argument for lack of evidence, you're proving the argument. Hitchens' razor is indisputable and an axiom. If Hitchens' razor was fallacious you wouldn't be able to use it to shave off his own argument with it.
Further more, you love to scream category error when ask for proof of your claims which is blatantly false. Take the water to wine example. We can have a jug of water and scientifically test it and verify it is. Have jesus turn it into wine with cameras watching him then test and verify the new liquid is wine. This is scientific proof of God, but according to you it is a category error. It seems you are the one not atheists to try to avoid any intellectual integrity by claiming "fallacy" when evidence and proof is asked of you.
Jay,
You seem to misunderstand the term "axiom". An axiom cannot disprove itself, as Hitchen's "razor" so obviously does. A self-refuting sentence does not make any sort of rational statement, much less an axiom. You believe in it because, first, you need to believe it just as Hitchens needed to believe it: it is an emotional crutch. Second, if it is shown to be not the case because it fails the laws of logic, which it obviously does fail, then you and other Atheists can logically be held by theists to having actual reasons for your opinions -reasons which are really based in logic and evidence, and that either you can present them or you will be held in contempt of rationality. Usually Atheists avoid the intellectual responsibility, and thus are held in contempt of rationality.
As for your scientific proof of God, go ahead and analyze the wine that Jesus made. Go on, do it. That you cannot do so indicates that your argument is logically absurd, and thus is a failure.
On the other hand, show your video of the Hebrews NOT crossing the Red Sea; that could be scientific evidence if properly handled. Go on, do it. That you cannot demonstrates again that your arguments for scientific disproof are rationally bogus, and that you have neither evidence nor logic to support your claims.
Further you do not actually understand either the basis for logic, actual logic, the basis for empirical experimental objective scientific factoids, or the actual creation of empirical experimental objective factoids.
If you could, actually, disprove any theist claim (not just ecclesiastic claims, but including them) then you would have done it. But you cannot so you did not.
But feel free to try again.
An axiom is a self-evident truth. You have no choice and self-evident to apply Hitchen's razor to Hitchen's razor proving its validity an axiomatic property. If Hitchen's razor wasn't valid as you say, you wouldn't be able to use it's truth value as a means of refuting it.
You believe in it because, first, you need to believe it just as Hitchens needed to believe it: it is an emotional crutch.
Thats rich comming from the guy who forces himself to believe a child's testimony of seeing ghosts as his only "proof" while projecting his insecurities on others. Something savages of old tribes did when they saw mystical visions. This is just a modern day spin.
-reasons which are really based in logic and evidence, and that either you can present them or you will be held in contempt of rationality. Usually Atheists avoid the intellectual responsibility, and thus are held in contempt of rationality.
Does this involve your mystic child experience that lacks logic and evidence? I already know your "prove me wrong" shtick lacks it. A bunch of like-minded religious fanatics groveling over a magical vision in lourdes is nothing new in history. You should be a Mormon Joseph Smith had a cleary more evident vision being able to form his own religion off of it. But hey selective skepticism is really YOUR MO right?
As for your scientific proof of God, go ahead and analyze the wine that Jesus made. Go on, do it. That you cannot do so indicates that your argument is logically absurd, and thus is a failure.
Annnnnnd he we go, we start to play the fundy Stan game of "Hey you can't prove my claims wrong!!!"
On the other hand, show your video of the Hebrews NOT crossing the Red Sea; that could be scientific evidence if properly handled. Go on, do it. That you cannot demonstrates again that your arguments for scientific disproof are rationally bogus, and that you have neither evidence nor logic to support your claims.
Bro YOU are the one claiming this not me. You have to prove it. Oh wait I forgot category error! I only demonstrated how your little bubble of "category error" is easily popped saying you cant scientifically prove God/miracles by giving you a perfect example how if said miracle happened today. You somehow turn it around and say "nu huh, you have to prove those claims wrong".
Further you do not actually understand either the basis for logic, actual logic, the basis for empirical experimental objective scientific factoids, or the actual creation of empirical experimental objective factoids.
Holy crap dude rofl, you sum yourself up so damn well its scary. Im amazed you dont have more quotes on http://www.fstdt.com/Search.aspx?Fundie=stan&Board=atheism+analyzed. Some of yours are on there, but im sure if someone went through all your non-sensical drivel you would fill pages on that site.
How about you for once in your life prove any theistic claim you make.
Jay, in the latest book by Alex Rosenberg, the professor of science states that all information, feelings, thoughts, and beliefs are purposless empty illusions that have no real causal power. This is the distilled reasoning obtained from a thourough naturalism. So how are you, a naturalist, able to come to a single reasonable conclusion about anything given the purposeless nature of your own "awareness"? Your friendly polytheist bisexual, Richard Norris.
Jay said:
An axiom is a self-evident truth. You have no choice and self-evident to apply Hitchen's razor to Hitchen's razor proving its validity an axiomatic property. If Hitchen's razor wasn't valid as you say, you wouldn't be able to use it's truth value as a means of refuting it.
Internal non-coherence is self-evidently false, not true… whether you like it or not. The "razor" is refuted not because it is true, it is refuted because it is false due to its logic failure. Contrary to its claim, it is refuted using evidence of its falseness, not by using its own claim.
Your attempt to create your own principles of logic also self-refutes, but then so do Atheism and Materialism both of which make internally non-coherent claims which are necessary to their existence.
You believe in it because, first, you need to believe it just as Hitchens needed to believe it: it is an emotional crutch.
Thats rich comming from the guy who forces himself to believe a child's testimony of seeing ghosts as his only "proof" while projecting his insecurities on others. Something savages of old tribes did when they saw mystical visions. This is just a modern day spin.
Ummm, what?? Are you referring to Lourdes? Do I believe in Lourdes? Where do I say that? The only claim I make is that you cannot prove the "miracle at Lourdes" false. I never said that I believe it, and whether I do or don't is totally irrelevant to what you, as an Atheist, can provide evidence to support your claim (childishly outlined by you above).
So here you have three claims to refute:
(1) the claim of the occurrence at Lourdes;
(2) My claim that Atheists -such as yourself - after claiming logic and evidence for their position, cannot provide either disciplined logic or hard empirical evidence to support any refutation of the claims in (1);
(3)My claim that instead of disciplined logic or hard empirical evidence, Atheists will provide excuses, dissembly, logical false associations, and logical fallacies of many types and especially ridicule of a childish nature in their attempt to cast aspersion rather than to provide either disciplined logic (grounded, properly structured, fallacy free of course) or hard, empirical evidence (objective, experimental, replicable and replicated, falsifiable and not falsified, open data, peer reviewed).
If that rational evidence/logic cannot be provided by the Atheist, then all other Atheist contributions are nothing but senseless blather.
-reasons which are really based in logic and evidence, and that either you can present them or you will be held in contempt of rationality. Usually Atheists avoid the intellectual responsibility, and thus are held in contempt of rationality.
Does this involve your mystic child experience that lacks logic and evidence?
The Atheist claim is sole possession of logic and evidence; the theist claim is made, so refute it.
(continued below)
(continued from above):
I already know your "prove me wrong" shtick lacks it. A bunch of like-minded religious fanatics groveling over a magical vision in lourdes is nothing new in history.
Defamation is not evidence for falseness, it is merely childish ridicule, which is an attempt to cover for the fact that you cannot provide any logic or evidence for any Atheist claim, whatsoever. All any Atheist has is ridicule of the type you exhibit, above. Well, that and irrational logic fallacies.
You should be a Mormon Joseph Smith had a cleary more evident vision being able to form his own religion off of it. But hey selective skepticism is really YOUR MO right?
You are not saying anything worth responding to; you are venting splenetic venom and nothing more. Where is your logic/evidence for the Truth Of Atheism?
As for your scientific proof of God, go ahead and analyze the wine that Jesus made. Go on, do it. That you cannot do so indicates that your argument is logically absurd, and thus is a failure.
Annnnnnd he we go, we start to play the fundy Stan game of "Hey you can't prove my claims wrong!!!"
It was your claim of scientific proof, and now you blame me? You claimed scientific proof: Where is it?? Put up, or shut up.
”On the other hand, show your video of the Hebrews NOT crossing the Red Sea; that could be scientific evidence if properly handled. Go on, do it. That you cannot demonstrates again that your arguments for scientific disproof are rationally bogus, and that you have neither evidence nor logic to support your claims.
Bro YOU are the one claiming this not me. You have to prove it. Oh wait I forgot category error! I only demonstrated how your little bubble of "category error" is easily popped saying you cant scientifically prove God/miracles by giving you a perfect example how if said miracle happened today."
Yet you provide nothing of consequence for the material aspect of the Miracle at Lourdes. All you do is make up hypothetical impossibilities for scientific proof, then you reneg on giving any scientific proof. Because all you have is story telling, not any empirical proof. Period.
"You somehow turn it around and say "nu huh, you have to prove those claims wrong".”
You are the one who claimed scientific evidence proved something to you; not me. It is your claim that these things did not, in fact occur. Yet all you have is your rejection without any thing to back it up. You have nothing.
Further you do not actually understand either the basis for logic, actual logic, the basis for empirical experimental objective scientific factoids, or the actual creation of empirical experimental objective factoids.
Holy crap dude rofl, you sum yourself up so damn well its scary.”
Excellent reply. Nothing of any substance whatsoever.
Im amazed you dont have more quotes on http://www.fstdt.com/Search.aspx?Fundie=stan&Board=atheism+analyzed. Some of yours are on there, but im sure if someone went through all your non-sensical drivel you would fill pages on that site.
Probably yours too.
How about you for once in your life prove any theistic claim you make.
I make the claims listed for you above.
Richard, et al,
Jay is making up his own rules of logic, which go directly contrary to the Aristotelian logic which is taught today in Logic 101 as the accepted rational process. Self-refutation is certain logical death to an internally non-coherent sentence, which is what Hitchens' "razor" amounts to.
The issue here, though, is not the razor. Jay's issue is that he, alone, wants to define logic. And that is a standard issue within Atheism, which is rejectionist to the core, and rejects logic, evidentiary requirements, and any intellectual responsibility to support their Materialist knowledge claims.
So any attack, no matter how direct and deadly on a principle of rejectionism, no matter how irrational, but which is useful to Atheists, will be rejected out of hand, because that is what Atheists do, and no more. There are no other Atheist principles beyond mere rejectionism. And it takes no intellect at all to make up rejectionist stories and ridicule.
Jay says:If you dismiss the argument for lack of evidence, you're proving the argument. Hitchens' razor is indisputable and an axiom
Let's look at you're argument in a formalized pattern:
If A then B
therefore C.
Unfortunately the argument is invalid due to an incoherent structure.
this is how a valid formal pattern should look:
P1)If A then B
P2)If B then C
C) If A then C
Now let's check if you're premises are true.
Your presupposition is that any argument against HR,proves it's validity.This means Hitchen's razor is unfalsifiable and can be dismissed simply on the grounds of no evidence can count against it.HR is therefore unscientific and illogic.
Jay say:If Hitchens' razor was fallacious you wouldn't be able to use it to shave off his own argument with it.
Wrong! It means that Hithcen's Razor falls in the same category as the Epimenides Paradox.It's unable to confirm itself.
atheistcrimes,
Exactly right, and thanks for taking the structured approach.
I love Hitchens' Razor for its blatant demonstration of Atheist denialism and refusal to engage with legitimate arguments. It appeals directly to the majority of Atheists who are maleducated and illiterate in rational thinking.
The modern idea of inclusion seems to mean that any thought a person has is true to that person and therefore is valid logic. At least that is the way Atheists present their denialist arguments. So reality and truth can become the effluent of emotion on the one hand and of faux science story-telling on the other, in the mind of the Atheist.
Thanks Stan,those logic classes are really working out.
Modern day AtheoLeftist logic:
Me right, you wrong. End of story.
That Aristotelian logic stuff is so "old school" and has been superseded by post-modern science. No intelligent quotient required, just emotional quotient. I feel my emotions; thereby they MUST be true. What possible value could something like logic have, since when someone like you uses it, I don't feel anything but total disinterest. Who cares what some dead white European male (Greek) guy came up with millenia ago?
Why can't you just admit that I WIN because I am like so totally emotional and you are like so... so... intellectual?!?
Post a Comment