1. Pharyngula (P.Z. Myers) – estimated rank (no response to challenge)
2. Friendly Atheist (Hemant Mehta) – 64,251 (confused response)[2]
3. Unreasonable Faith (Daniel Florien) – 99,768 (no response)
4. Common Sense Atheism (Luke Muehlhauser) – 121,189 (no response)
5. Debunking Christianity (John W. Loftus) – 142,187 ( illogical response)[3]
6. The Freethinker – 219,106 (no response)
7. Atheist Revolution (vjack) – 221,366 (no response)
8. Stupid Evil Bastard (Les Jenkins) – 239,770 (confessed incapability)[4]
9. Greta Christina – 248,419 (too busy)
10. Vridar (Neil Godfrey) – 251,645 (too offended)[5]
11. Daylight Atheism (Adam Lee) – 321,809 (no response)
12. About Agnosticism/Atheism (Austin Cline) – estimated rank (illogical response)[6]
13. The Thinking Atheist – estimated rank (no response)
14. New Humanist – estimated rank (no response)
15. American Atheists – estimated rank (no response)
17. Jesus and Mo - not ranked (no response)
18. Venganza - not ranked (no response)
19. Atheist Media Blog - not ranked (no response)
20. Dwindling in Unbelief - not ranked (responded with expletive)
My blog doesn’t have comment screening. Any comments are immediately posted. But many atheist blogs use a screening process to filter out any comments they don’t like. I posted my challenge in the comment section of articles and referenced the article and/or blog premise so as to be relevant. The full comments are available at the links noted above, but the following are some highlights.
 |
| Richard Wade |
John Loftus at Debunking Christianity had an illogical reply to my challenge: “Rick, let's do it this way, the simple way. Let's assume that your arguments are spot on. What does that really get you?” And he added a link to one of his articles which attempts to bypass reason and logic. If my premises are all correct, then this underscores the truth of God's existence. Les Jenkins, at Stupid Evil Bastard blog, confessed that he didn’t feel well informed about philosophy and didn’t feel up to the challenge. Jenkins described the title of his blog as an “ironic self-reference of sorts.”
Neil Godfrey at first accepted my challenge. But later he confessed he was offended by the God of the Bible and ultimately decided he did not want to subject his 'better' beliefs to the rigor of an online debate. Austin Cline had an illogical response. He did not want to come to try and refute my article but was reluctant to actually state that he was declining my challenge. I asked "Can you perhaps more clearly clarify that you are declining my challenge?" His somewhat humorous response was, " No, because that’s not what I’m doing." The American Atheists blog and other blogs screened out my challenge from the comments.
 |
| John Lofttus |
The following is a list of some of the common objections raised by atheists that were addressed in the comment section of my article:
1. "Theism can’t be proven scientifically." – Science today is based on Methodological Naturalism, which means it presupposes materialism, the idea that no God exists. Academia is controlled by this atheist presupposition and evidence that points to God’s existence is screened out and those who offer this evidence are punished by the system. While it’s true it is difficult to prove God exists scientifically, it is easier to prove scientifically that materialism cannot logically account for life and the natural world considering the scientific evidence.
2. "Materialists don’t have to explain anything." - This is a common misconception. Materialism is a philosophy. The definition of Materialism according to Webster’s Dictionary states, “Materialism: a theory that physical matter is the only or fundamental reality and that all being and processes and phenomena can be explained as manifestations or results of matter.”[7] Materialism, however, has so far failed to fulfill its definition as a theory. Precious little “can be explained” regarding the most important metaphysical questions of existence. Why is there something instead of nothing? What's the origin of matter, the universe, the origin of life, the origin of information, the origin and makeup of consciousness?
3. "There are no peer reviewed articles supporting Intelligent Design." - This link lists such peer reviewed articles.[8]
 |
| Austin Cline |
5. "There are not enough debates available on YouTube." – One main reason is because the top atheist biologist and advocate, Richard Dawkins, refuses to debate Michael Behe, Stephen Myer, and many other qualified scientists who have had peer-reviewed articles published.[11]
6. "Near death experiences have been thoroughly disproved." - Atheist articles on the subject, such as Greta Christina's,[12] often pretend to be objective, but cherry-pick sources and avoid references to famous peer-reviewed articles supporting NDE, which verify events that are unexplainable according to materialist presuppositions. The Pamela Reynolds case remains strong evidence as well, and the implications of theistic, supernatural spiritual realm have never been disproved.
7. "Only scientific evidence counts." - Logic is a unique field because it has both objective and subjective aspects. Logic is helpful in understanding concepts and realities that cannot be observed and measured scientifically. Science is limited as a means of describing theoretical and empirical evidence. Because near death experiences cannot be repeated on demand in scientific experiments, this does not mean that the evidence for NDE is invalid.
 | |
| Neil Godfrey |
9. "You haven't proven anything." – Webster’s Dictionary describes proof as the provision of convincing evidence in accordance with sound reasoning: 1. a : the cogency of evidence that compels acceptance by the mind of a truth or a fact b : the process or an instance of establishing the validity of a statement especially by derivation from other statements in accordance with principles of reasoning."[13] My proof of God’s existence is based on the preponderance of evidence presented in a logical format.
Conclusion
Not one of the star atheist personalities of the top 20 atheist blogs followed through on the challenge to demonstrate the philosophical strength of atheism. And the screening out of my simple challenge and comments implies that many are fearful of admitting they don't really have answers to fundamental questions.
These points help to underscore the biblical premise that the truths of God in the word are self-evident and the denial of God's existence is based mainly on an attempt to suppress the truth.[14] Those who test the ideas of my proof of God's existence with an objective and open mind will see that the preponderance of evidence supports the reality of God's existence. Neil Godfrey's response highlighted personal reasons why people often reject the truth about God. People are offended by the cross of Christ. For many it's not really about logic, reasoning or facts, but the gospel is ultimately a "stone of stumbling, and a rock of offense.”[15] God would have you know the truth, because the truth will set you free indeed.[16]
Addenda
Note 1: Some have claimed that my challenge was simply 'trolling' the Internet. But I'd like to thank a commenter named Reynold for pointing out in the comment section of the Blogger post that the obvious place to post comments in a debate is at the location of the original article (. If I had entertained a debate at 20 different website there would have been a lot of unnecessary overlapping points. As it stands anyone sincerely interested in a debate has the opportunity. And, as of January 1, 2012, no effective challenge has been offered, though many atheists have attempted to refute the proof.
Note 2: Since my challenge was offered, Austin Cline has deleted referenced sentences from his articles and comments. I have a copy of the webpage with the original text I hope to post on a separate webpage shortly.
References
[1] Common Sense Atheism, 20 most Popular Atheist Blogs, http://commonsenseatheism.com/?p=5732
[2] Friendly Atheist, challenge response 07/13/2011,
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2011/07/13/richard-asks-how-can-we-constructively-respond-to-more-religious-visitors/
[3] Debunking Christianity, challenge response 07/18/2011, http://debunkingchristianity.blogspot.com/2011/07/dr-avalos-vs-dr-weikart-rematch.html
[4] Stupid Evil Bastard, challenge response 07/19/2011, http://stupidevilbastard.com/2011/07/bored-with-trees-telephone-poles-and-tacos-jesus-shows-up-on-walmart-receipt/
[5] Vridar, challenge response, 07/23/2011, http://templestream.blogspot.com/2011/03/how-identity-logic-and-physics-prove.html#comments
[6] About Atheism/Agnosticism, challenge response July 18, 2011, http://atheism.about.com/b/2011/07/16/myth-real-atheists-dont-convert-others-wouldnt-promote-atheism.htm
[7] Webster's Dictionary, definition of Materialism, http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/materialism
[8] Center for Science and Culture, List of ID related peer reviewed articles published in secular journals:, http://www.discovery.org/a/2640
[9] Center for Science and Culture, Kenneth Miller, Michael Behe, and the Irreducible Complexity of the Blood Clotting Cascade Saga, http://www.discovery.org/a/14081
[10] Evolution News and Views, Dover in Review, pt. 2: Did Judge Jones read the evidence submitted to him in the Dover trial?, http://www.evolutionnews.org/2005/12/dover_in_review_pt_2_did_judge001793.html
[11] Conservapedia, Richard Dawkins, http://conservapedia.com/Richard_Dawkins
[12] Greta Christina's Blog, Why Near Death Experiences Are a Terrible Argument for the Soul,
http://gretachristina.typepad.com/greta_christinas_weblog/2010/08/near-death-experiences.html
[13] Webster's Dictionary, definition of proof, http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/proof
[14] Romans 1.18, NIV, http://bible.cc/romans/1-18.htm
[15] 1 Peter 2.8, ASV, http://bible.cc/1_peter/2-8.htm
[16] John 8.32, http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John+8%3A32&version=NIV
[15] 1 Peter 2.8, ASV, http://bible.cc/1_peter/2-8.htm
[16] John 8.32, http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John+8%3A32&version=NIV
I am not sure you'll get much following here, as you're restating anew the very same arguments that have been already thoroughly debunked in the previous conversation. Why are you fleeing the evidence that was exposed and the questions that were left open in the comments under your previous post ? How many times do you expect people to re-present their same answers against your same fallacies ?
ReplyDeleteFor me it's enough. There is enough matter for any honest passer-by to make his/her own mind by reading the thread under the previous post.
Yogi,
ReplyDeleteYou seem to be nothing more than an atheist troll coming here to tell lies.
The "very same arguments that have been already thoroughly debunked"
For example, you are implying there are no peer-reviewed articles supporting Intelligent Desgn, that I just made that point up.
A person who wants to investigate the subject of peer reviewed articles can search these key words in the original article and easily find the dialogues showing you are simply a poser telling lies. Or they can just click the link at point 3 above and immediately see you are lying.
"For me it's enough." - Good. Go back to atheist troll land.
There may be peer reviewed articles supporting ID (or at least, in the case of Meyer's controversial paper, articles appearing in peer reviewed journals, since his article avoided the standard review process), it seems it is not the case that there are any articles which have survived post-publishing critical review by other experts in the field.
ReplyDeleteIt is for this and similar reasons that ID'ers have created their own vanity "journals" - to try to gain the respectability of science without having to live up to the rigorous standards of science.
You're supposed "proof" for God is, as Yogi says, thoroughly debunked. You continue to add verbiage to the previous post, and continue to expand your focus, but all the while you've not actually rebutted the problems which have been multiply pointed out to you.
Havok,
ReplyDeleteH: “it seems it is not the case that there are any articles which have survived post-publishing critical review by other experts in the field.
R: You sound like Dr. George Kampis, who continues his misrepresentation of ID:
"Supporters of Intelligent Design don't take the normal route to creating a theory. They don't write peer reviewed papers or present research at scientific seminars."
That's easy to say, but is it true? No, it's false. ID-proponents do write peer-reviewed papers supportive of ID (see here) and ID-proponents also offer papers at conferences.
For a couple of examples, see the poster here and Jonathan Wells presented a poster based upon a scientific article he published. Dr. Kampis appears to have been misinformed, and unfortunately he passed on that misinformation to his audience. This is how the spread of misinformation works among ID-critics.
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2007/01/could_a_darwinist_get_more_fac003109.html
Another source confirm articles by Dominic Hassler, Scott A. Minnich and Stephen C. Meyer have been approved as a part of secular conferences at Wessex Institute. This is not a one-time invitation to ID scientists, it’s open ended.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wessex_Institute_of_Technology#cite_note-2
The following resource lists dozens of articles supporting ID, many peer-reviewed, and how these articles have led to specific advances in science:
http://www.ideacenter.org/contentmgr/showdetails.php/id/1505
The problem with many atheist reviews of ID articles is that they are obviously biased and non-objective:
http://www.arn.org/blogs/index.php/literature/2007/11/15/an_established_trend_in_critical_reviews
Similarly, biologist Darrel Falk did not even address the main premise of Meyer’s Signature in the Cell:
“Nowhere in his review does Falk refute this claim or provide another explanation for the origin of biological information.” The atheist Falk's review is just propaganda:
http://biologos.org/blog/response-to-darrel-falks-review-of-signature-in-the-cell
Unfortunately, you probably think Falk debunked Meyer's book, even as you think you've debunked my article.
It seems you rely on ethos based rhetoric rather than logic based rhetoric. But there's is a danger in relying on the opinion of the establishment as a basis for your truth.
Recently, Monsanto was named Company of the Year, Ben Bernanke was named Person of the Year and President Obama won the Nobel Peace Prize.
http://www.infowars.com/blind-health-forbes-magazine-declares-monsanto-company-of-the-year/
http://www.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,1946375_1947251_1947520,00.html
http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/mehdi-hasan/2009/10/nobel-peace-prize-obama
You may not understand why this example is comical, but someday I hope you understand that the opinions of the establishment mean very little with regard to truth. And based on your rebuttals so far, you haven't debunked anything in my article.
:)
Rick, did you actually read the sentence you responded to?
ReplyDeleteI wrote "it seems it is not the case that there are any articles which have survived post-publishing critical review by other experts in the field."
All of your responses to this merely pointed out that there are some (very few) papers and articles published in peer review journals which support ID. My statement took this as given.
Unfortunately you don't seem qualified to assess whether a pro-ID article/paper has passed critical review or not (you seem to take the ID proponents view as final).
Rick: Science today is based on methodolical naturalism, which means it presupposes materialism, that no God exists.
ReplyDeleteMethodological Naturalism is assumed because it works and there is not real competitor.
If you'd like to propose another methodology for investigating external reality, go right ahead.
Rick: Academia is controlled by this presupposition and evidence that points to God’s existence is screened out and those who offer this evidence are punished by the system.
This is false. Academia is "controlled" by this assumption only so far as it is the best, most objective means of gaining knowledge concerning reality. Evidence that "points to God" is not "screened out" - look at all the theists who jump on the "fine tuning" bandwagon (and other God of he gaps arguments).
I think what you object to here is that thus far a supernatural explanation has been unnecessary to account for anything we have a thorough explanation for, while methodological naturalism has been very successful in providing these explanations.
Rick: While it’s true it is difficult to prove God exists scientifically,
It shouldn't be difficult. The Christian God is supposed have intervened in history (and is claimed to continue to do so). This ought to leave a wide trail of empirical evidence for this being's actions.
Unfortunately for Christians, such evidence seems to be unavailable.
Rick: it is easier to prove that materialism cannot account for life and the natural world through scientific evidence.
God of the gaps, Rick. There is no "proof" that God is required for anything, even the origin of the visible universe (our space-time bubble).
Rick: Materialism, however, has so far failed to fulfill its definition as a theory.
No it hasn't. nothing in the definition you cited required us to actually have and/or be able to understand these explanations.
Rick: Precious little “can be explained” regarding the most important metaphysical questions of existence.
They're "important" to you, but why are they actually so important?
Rick: Materialism, however, has so far failed to fulfill its definition as a theory. Precious little “can be explained” regarding the most important metaphysical questions of existence. Why is there something instead of nothing? What's the origin of matter? ..the universe, the origin of life, the origin of information, the origin and makeup of consciousness?
And the theistic responses to these questions are failures. They're lacking in any sort of detail, don't explicitely follow from the metaphysical assumptions being made (ie. God did not have to create, therefore the existence of the universe still needs an explanation).
Rick: There are no peer reviewed articles supporting Intelligent Design.
There are very few, and the majority of them seem to have been published in vanity journals, or to have bypassed standard review procedures (Meyer's paper in the "Proceedings" journal).
Rick: The Dover case focused on Michael Behe’s blood clotting cascade as an example for irreducible complexity. However, Since Behe made it clear in Darwin’s Black Box that his argument for irreducible complexity only applied to components after the fork (the red),
Behe was shown work done on the cascade - thousands of pages of articles. He admitted he had not read them, and so his ignorance of the field he was commenting on was his undoing.
Fine tuning is a "god of the gaps" argument?
DeleteA"God of the gaps" argument is usually based on a lack of knowledge. As we increase in scientific knowledge, the tables are turning in the sense that materialist explanations are increasingly inadequate for the task of explaining how what exists is possible without an intelligent creator. God is not a “backup” explanation, but the best explanation, the most elegant explanation according to Occam's razor. As WL Craig puts it:
Delete"What is the best explanation for this astounding phenomenon? There are three live options. The fine-tuning of the universe is due to either physical necessity, chance, or design. Which of these options is the most plausible?" Craig rightly points out that God is not the "backup" answer of the "gaps," but the most plausible answer, based on the most current science.
http://www.reasonablefaith.org/transcript-fine-tuning-argument
Rick: There are not enough debates available on YouTube or online in general to show Intelligent Design is valid
ReplyDeleteDebate is not how science is done, nor how knowledge if advanced. They're entertainment at best :-)
Rick: Atheist articles on the subject, such as Greta Christina's,[13] sometimes avoid the fact that the two famous peer-reviewed articles supporting NDE verify events that are unexplainable, according to materialist presuppositions. The Pamela Reynolds case remains strong evidence as well and the implications of theistic, supernatural spiritual realm have never been disproved.
It's not so much that they're been "thoroughly disproved" as the supernatural elements of those which have been investigated have been shown to be unnecessary to the explanation.
This means that the supernatural element is superfluous, and has certainly not been "proved". The ball is in the court of those who favour the supernatural explanation to provide further evidence.
Rick: Logic also deals with concepts and realities that cannot be observed and measured scientifically. Science is thus limited as a means of describing evidence.
If we want to see if/whether a logical conclusion has a basis in reality, we need to test it against reality. If we want to see what logically follows from observations of reality, we need those observations of reality.
Without reference to reality, logic is not much more than a word game - interesting in it's own right, but running by a set of formal rules, and not necessarily related to the world out there.
Rick: Because near death experiences cannot be repeated on demand in scientific experiments, this s does not mean that the evidence for NDE is invalid.
Lots of things in science cannot be repeated on demand - historical events, geological events, cosmic events, etc etc etc. All of these are open to scientific investigation, as are NDE's.
The experiments which have sought to control for bias, such as placing random number displas on the top of shelves, have thus far turned up no evidence in favour of the supernatural hypothesis.
Rick: I was quite surprised that not one of the star atheist personalities of the top 20 atheist blogs took up the opportunity to try to demonstrate the strength of atheist belief.
Why would you be surprised that busy people took little to notice of a noboby like yourself?
Rick: Those who test the ideas of my proof of God's existence with an objective and open mind will see that the preponderance of evidence supports the reality of God's existence.
This displays a closed mind on your part. You are assuming that you are not and cannot be incorrect in your position.
This is not a good position to assess the evidence objectively, and explains why you have so much difficulty understanding how and why your claims have failed.
Rick Warden said...
ReplyDeleteHavok,
H: Rick, did you actually read the sentence you responded to?
R: Yes, Havok, did you actually read my reply?
You specifically demanded “any articles which have survived post-publishing critical review” as a supposed litmus test for ID.
1. I referenced the secular Wessex Design and Nature conferences, which have repeatedly invited scientists who support Creationism and ID. Peer reviewed papers are critiqued there (Specifically Meyer's article “Genetic Analysis of Coordinate Flagellar and Type III Regulatory Circuits” and another one listed in the reference. if they did not “survive” post-publishing critical review, Wessex would not invite ID scientists back to the forums. The word “design” in the forum name underscores that the secular conference is not opposed to ID peer reviewed articles.
http://www.wessex.ac.uk/12-conferences/designandnature-2012.html
2. I listed peer-reviewed articles referenced in secular journals as evidence for the advance of scientific knowledge:
http://www.ideacenter.org/contentmgr/showdetails.php/id/1505
If ID articles did not “survive” any critical post publishing opinions, why would they be referenced in secular journals as evidence to support other scientific claims? Because they are referenced they are accounted as valid.
3. Furthermore, I referenced an article citing the pattern of non-objective reviews by atheists. Specific cases are given noting how the atheist reviewer did not even address the main thesis of the work but focused on ancillary points.
http://www.arn.org/blogs/index.php/literature/2007/11/15/an_established_trend_in_critical_reviews
Cont...
cont..
ReplyDeleteHavok,
H: This is false. Academia is "controlled" by this assumption only so far as it is the best, most objective means of gaining knowledge concerning reality.
R: Havok, I had made a challenge to you July 25 to refute the fact that atheist hegemony exists. So far you ignored my challenge:
“You (Havok) pretend to be objective when it is fairly obvious you are not. You had mocked the idea of academic atheist hegemony but couldn't bring yourself to read about it because Expelled was in the endnotes. An objective seeker of truth would at least look into facts before making presumptuous statements. Try and refute it, Havok:”
Find fault with the documented facts, Havok
http://templestream.blogspot.com/2010/02/are-atheist-jellyfish-taking-over-world.html
The fact that atheist hegemony exists obviously limits the publication and review of ID articles. This proves nothing with regard to the factual basis of ID. And your need to depend on accolades from the establishment, not scientific facts themselves, as a basis of your argument, shows your argument is fallacious and a straw-man one.
I showed examples why the opinion of the establishment is a poor arbiter of truth. You have to support your presupposition that a biased system is a valid arbiter of truth or that it is not biased and non-objective against ID science.
In this regard, you had completely disregarded all the evidence of harassment I presented regarding Sternberg at the other article's comments July 24:
The U.S. Office of Special Counsel(OSC)stated
"During our initial investigations, OSC has been able to find support for many of your allegations. However, the SI is now refusing to cooperate with our investigation."
As noted, The Smithsonian Institution refused to cooperate in an open and transparent investigation. Atheist hegemony 101.
http://www.rsternberg.net/OSC_ltr.htm
H: The Christian God is supposed have intervened in history (as scientific evidence for God)
R: Historical evidence for God’s existence is truly demonstrated through fulfilled prophecies, but is not at all recognized as scientific evidence:
http://templestream.blogspot.com/2010/01/open-challenge-to-bible-critics.html
Havok, Your comments here in general are continuing to reinforce the reality that you are in a state of denial.
Your usual tactic is to make a slew of statements rarely backed up with links and references. Anyone sincerely interested in the truth can compare my linked references to specific facts with your non-referenced comments.
Repeating unsupported claims over and over again does not win a debate. It seems your debate approach can be reduced to one sentence: “I’ve made up my mind, don’t confuse me with the facts.”
Looks like I am a couple of days late, since the discussion has moved to another post 8)
ReplyDeleteJust to insert my two cents, I would like to remind you, that the prophecies from the bible are a shaky type of evidence at best. Some issues are already being addressed in your post "An open challenge to bible critics". Frankly speaking, the Koran is much more accurate than the bible, since almost from the start the authorities strictly controled its content.
It would seem that challenge of yours has been dealt with by a few commentators here and here at least to a minor extent, though it looks as if you've chosen to ignore them while making a spam troll of yourself.
ReplyDeleteYou may not use profanity, but you do like to insult people, however subtly.
As for your claims about the IDist getting a raw deal in the Dover trial? Please. They got caught out and they know it.
You can read the transcripts here.
As for IDist and peer review? Again...please.
Also, would you care to explain just how "militant atheists" are "promoting hatred" please? What is a "militant atheist" as opposed to a "militant muslim"? Do those atheists go around threatening and killing people? Who would you characterize as a "militant athiest"?
Reynold,
ReplyDeleteIt seems you have the habit of posting multiple links without referencing any specific ideas. If you'd like to challenge one of my logical proofs, please try to pick a premise you'd like to attack and let's stick to one subject and have a rational debate.
As far as Militant Atheism goes, The Militant Atheism website states, a “disregard for the tolerance of religion” as outlined in my article, New Atheism: New Excuses and New Abuses
http://templestream.blogspot.com/2010/02/new-atheism-new-excuses-and-new-abuses.html
In another article, Dawkins-Craig Debate, Genocide, Israel's Occupation of Palestine, I noted that Stalin founded the League of Militant Atheists, whose chief aim was to propagate militant atheism and eradicate religion.
http://templestream.blogspot.com/2011/10/dawkins-craig-debate-genocide-israels.html
Other militant atheists and their genocides are listed there as well.
Where did I say in my post above that I intended to attack one of your "logical proofs"? That was not my purpose here.
ReplyDeleteI thought that would be obvious since I posted my comment here instead of over where you actually have the challenge.
I did point out that others on the "Friendly Atheist" blog have dealt with your challenge, but that you ignored them and instead focused on the blog writer who found your "proofs" incoherent; all with the relevent links.
That's as far as I went with that, because it seems you have a tendency to ignore things when people point them out to you, as JeffP did on the "Friendly Atheist" blog.
Even though you had said: Also, if you, Richard or anyone here can back up your atheism with solid reasoning, I challenge you to refute my article:!
You were too busy being a spam troll as wmdkitty pointed out, to care.
I did take issue with some of your other claims, claims which were posted in this post.
You said that I did not reference any specific ideas? Huh?
I mentioned which ideas of yours are wrong in my previous post.
You claimed that ID got a raw deal in the Dover Trial. I provided links both to the video where at the second minute it's shown that Behe ignored evidence that shot down his point, and a link to where the actual transcripts can be found to verify that.
Are you in the habit of ignoring the points others raise?
At least you define "militant" better than others of your ilk do. They'd define Dawkins as "militant"! All he does is write!
One thing you'll never find: Modern atheists defending genocide like William Lane Craig does.
Even PZ Myers was revolted at that. Xian morality in action. And it's claimed that it's us atheists who are the "moral relativists"?
Hell, that's the actual reason that Dawkins won't deal with that guy.
By the way, you do know that attacking the validity of atheism by pointing out all the "genocides" that atheists have done is a logical fallacy right? Probably this one as well.
By the way, you might be interested to know that atheists by and large, do not approve of forcing their views on others.
ReplyDeleteReynold,
ReplyDeleteRey: That was not my purpose here.
Rick: Reynold, you are welcome to explain your purpose here whenever you feel ready. I won't pressure you, but it would be helpful to know whenever you feel up to it.
Stating that others at different blogs have refuted my premises without offering one single example seems a bit disingenuous. You stated I "ignored" the comments. How do you know? How do you know that I considered them even worth responding to?
It seems you maybe here to waste my time. Please offer one example, the strongest one, from the link you gave at "Friendly Atheist" to validate your claim.
Rey: By the way, you might be interested to know that atheists by and large, do not approve of forcing their views on others.
Rick: Many do and many do not. I'm also aware there are many sincere, good-intentioned and peace-loving atheists, in addition to militant atheists. But this does not negate the fact the the law of non-contradiction exists, and that both atheism and Christianity cannot be true. One of the beliefs is wrong, and, according to logic, it's not Christianity. If you disagree, challenge any premises I've written.
"My purpose"? It was to show you that some people on the "Friendly Atheist" blog had responded to your arguments and you ignored them.
ReplyDeleteThat, and to point out that a few other of your points were wrong.
You know, this is the first time on any blog anywhere that I've seen, that anyone has asked a commentator what the commentator's "purpose" was in commenting on the blog.
You didn't state your purpose when you posted on Dan's blog, but at least with all those athiest blogs you posted to, spam-whoring was the obvious motive, so there was no need to make a declaration of purpose then.
Rick Warden
Stating that others at different blogs have refuted my premises without offering one single example seems a bit disingenuous.
I gave you links. Do I have to go over and click them for you?? I'm not the one being disingenuous here.
Rick Warden
You stated I "ignored" the comments. How do you know? How do you know that I considered them even worth responding to?
Have you considered that might be why most of the atheists you spammed didn't bother with your little arguments?
Perhaps it's not cowardice at all but that your arguments just weren't worth responding to.
Maybe you should update your little spiel on the side of this blog to show that possibility?
Rick Warden
One of the beliefs is wrong, and, according to logic, it's not Christianity. If you disagree, challenge any premises I've written.
Let's see: Your premise that "logic" is evidence of your god? That's just a bald assertion with noting at all to back it up.
Let's look at the verses you used:
Hebrews 11:3
Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear.
What do you say?
Logic, information and the spiritual dimension form the basis of prime reality.
Where do you get "logic" out of that? The rules of logic are just tools humans use to help make sense of the world around us.
John 1.1, 1.14: God is the logical basis of prime reality.
Uh, no. Those verse just say (in order)
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
It's John verse 3 here that talks about biblegod supposedly having created all things.
So what? Doesn't the koran say the same thing about allah?
Now, the next verse: John 14:
And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.
Just says that god was supposed to have come to earth as christ. So? Nothing at all about what you claim that verse is supposed to have said.
By the way, there is an error in verse 18 there:
No man hath seen God at any time, the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.
Not so. Moses saw god, allegedly:
Exodus 33:11 and which seems to contradict the previous verse. Nevertheless, whether back or face, Moses did see him.
Now to that last verse:
Colossians 1:17
which you interpret as: God is both the creator and enabler of the physical world.
Another assertion without proof. "...by all things consist" the verse says. If that's to mean that he also maintains the universe, then I'd like to remind you of the second law of thermodynamics.
As I said: There's nothing truly backing up your assertion that the laws of logic prove the xian god. The bible has no indication that their writers even knew of those laws. The greeks on the other hand, actually formulated them right out.
Reynold,
ReplyDeleteYou are the first person who has come to my blog stating you have a special "purpose" - I was just curious to know what it was.
I had writiten - "Stating that others at different blogs have refuted my premises without offering one single example seems a bit disingenuous."
And this was your reply:
"I gave you links. Do I have to go over and click them for you?? I'm not the one being disingenuous here."
You've so far accused me of spamming and trolling by offering my challenge and not chasing down every comment on every blog related to my challenge. What I find interesting is that you've basically invalidated your own criticisms with your own comments. I'd like to thank you because it was a very helpful addition to the article:
"Note: Some have claimed that my challenge was simply 'trolling' the Internet. But I'd like to thank Reynold who pointed out in the comment section of this Blogger post that it is obvious the best place to post comments in a debate is at the location of the original article (Blogger - January 2, 2012 2:28 PM). If I had entertained a debate at 20 different website there would have been a lot of unnecessary overlapping points. As it stands, anyone sincerely interested in a debate has the opportunity. And, as of January 1, 202, no effective challenge has been offered, though many atheists have attempted to refute the proof."
I asked you to validate your criticisms with actual cogent arguments at Friendly Atheist, but, instead, you've invalidated your own criticism. Thanks for your contribution to the discussion. If at any time you'd like a logical debate, as opposed to just making bluffs and accusations, you know where to find me.
I only pointed out my "purpose" after you somehow assumed that I was then interested in attacking your "logical proofs" of theism as evidenced by your first reply to me.
ReplyDeleteI was just wanting to point out that those ID links, etc. had bogus claims and I provided links for further reading on those.
In a later comment, I pointed out that the laws of logic do not prove the existence of your god, and you disregarded what I said. At least you didn't delete my comments.
As for your spammming? Yes. If you go to 20 different blogs and offer each one a challenge asking them all to go to your site, especially if the challenge that you posted doesn't really have anything to do with the topic they were talking about (most people find that annoying) what do you call that?
You will be mentioned by the other commentators there.
If you had thought about this beforehand, instead of going all over the place but stuck with maybe one or two blogs where people replied to you, maybe you'd have been able to keep up with the comments that your remarks engender.
Remember what I posted ealier: You challenged anyone on the Friendly Atheist blog to try to refute your claims.
They did so...not in your blog post about it which admittedly would have been better, but in the same comments section where you originally commented on his blog.
You say that I've "invalidated" my own points? Huh?
Bottom line: You chose to go to twenty websites one after the other (almost all of the links you gave above are in the seventh month of 2011).
If you do that and also challenge the other commentators there to refute you, chances are they'll do so, but just not necessarily on your blog...most people will likely just do it in the blog you first made your challenge.
If you complain about not being able to keep up maybe you shouldn't have spammed so many boards in such a short period of time. At least that way, if no one goes to your blog to argue, you can still deal with the commentators who take issue with what you say. You could even invite them over to your blog if you want.
At least the argument gets hashed out one way or the other.
Reynold,
Delete>If you complain about not being able to keep up...
- That was never my point. I agreed with your point that the most obvious place to debate an article is at the article's location, as opposed to repeating points unnecessarily at 20 different blogs. Do you have any cogent philosophical arguments to make or are you going to waste my time with this subject Ad infinitum?
I will ignore you if you continue beating a dead horse. This does not mean I am unable to keep up with comments, it simply means some people and some types of comments are not worth responding to. If you cannot understand this reality, I can't help you to understand it.
>Logic, information and the spiritual dimension form the basis of prime reality.
Where do you get "logic" out of that?
- There are two ways of viewing the world: matter is based on truth or truth is based on matter and the physical world. In the former view, logic retains cohesion. In the latter view, QM undermines logical cohesion.
Christ is described as the "Logos" the Logic who created the universe and we do not see this type of description in any other religion.
People often say Buddha also promoted unconditional forgiveness, but I would like to ask you to show specific quotes from Buddhist text advocating unconditional forgiveness and 'loving your enemies'. I've heard this text exists but have not seen it. My understanding is that Buddhism promotes 'detachment' from the world. But this is not necessarily a conscious act of forgiveness and 'good will' towards another.