"I'm a big hairy idiot of a biker and I don't cry very often. I felt like somebody poured hot water through me. The place that was empty inside me wasn't empty anymore." -Reg Hyde
(Wales)—He was a hard-living, death-defying biker from Wales on a road trip across America. When his brakes failed on a steep mountain curve, God's miraculous intervention changed his life forever.
According to a God Reports story, Reg Hyde's childhood read like a "doomed to fail in life" playbook. Unloved, abused and rejected by his birth mother, he was also molested when he was 15-years-old by his employer at a grocery store. Later, after he was trained by the Royal Air Force as an electrician, Hyde began taking drugs, abusing his girlfriends, and engaging in criminal activity.
Becoming despondent, he attempted suicide twice. He sought counseling, but when he was told he should consider reconciling with his mother, all Hyde could think is, "If I saw her walking down the road I would drive over her." He even tried praying during this time, but gave up when he didn't see answers to his prayers as he expected them.
Soon, he was an avowed atheist. "I could prove to you God didn't exist," he recalls. Drugs and violence ruled his life, and in 1990 he wrote a poem to the devil in 1990 published in the magazine "Backstreet Heroes." But, still, somewhere in the inner recesses of his soul he wanted to believe in something.
According to a God Reports story, Reg Hyde's childhood read like a "doomed to fail in life" playbook. Unloved, abused and rejected by his birth mother, he was also molested when he was 15-years-old by his employer at a grocery store. Later, after he was trained by the Royal Air Force as an electrician, Hyde began taking drugs, abusing his girlfriends, and engaging in criminal activity.
Becoming despondent, he attempted suicide twice. He sought counseling, but when he was told he should consider reconciling with his mother, all Hyde could think is, "If I saw her walking down the road I would drive over her." He even tried praying during this time, but gave up when he didn't see answers to his prayers as he expected them.
Soon, he was an avowed atheist. "I could prove to you God didn't exist," he recalls. Drugs and violence ruled his life, and in 1990 he wrote a poem to the devil in 1990 published in the magazine "Backstreet Heroes." But, still, somewhere in the inner recesses of his soul he wanted to believe in something.
Read full article at God Reports
Tags: present day miracles, powerful testimony of conversion, positive Christian news, Reg Hyde bike testimony, Reg Hyde Biking miracle
Ah, lovely. Anecdotes as data. I refer you to the series "Why I am an Atheist" on Pharyngula to get yourself more anecdotes.
ReplyDeleteThe word anecdote is more in keeping with the "arguments" put forward by top atheist apologists who avoid logical laws and principles at all costs, such as PZ Myers. As noted, I had offered to send a biscuit to the first person who could find a single logical argument at PZ Myers blog, Pharyngula. No takers.
ReplyDeletehttp://templestream.blogspot.com/search?q=atheists+avoid+logic+like+the+plague
Personal testimonies, however, are considered valid forms of evidence. Personal testimonies are considered valid evidence even to the extent that they may be used to indict criminals in a court of law and send them to jail:
"In the law, testimony is a form of evidence that is obtained from a witness who makes a solemn statement or declaration of fact."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Testimony
If PZ Myers' beliefs and arguments had half the credibility that personal testimonies have, he might not be afraid to debate someone such as William Lane Craig.
Myers, who believes that morality is based on feelings of empathy, claimed 'moral supremacy' as an excuse for not debating, an illogical assertion for a moral relativist.
"If William Lane Craig were to offer a debate in a written format, would you accept?" - No. Why? "appalled at his words" (8 November 2011 at 7:19 pm)
http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2011/11/08/why-i-will-not-debate-william-lane-craig/ -
The word anecdote is more in keeping with the "arguments" put forward by top atheist apologists who avoid logical laws and principles at all costs, such as PZ Myers.
DeleteI notice that having had your last example discredited, you immediately switch to a new one, in trying to defend your point.
Admit you were wrong about Stephen Law, Rick.
Personal testimonies, however, are considered valid forms of evidence.
Evidence for *what*, Rick?
If PZ Myers' beliefs and arguments had half the credibility that personal testimonies have, he might not be afraid to debate someone such as William Lane Craig.
He's not afraid -- by his own testimony, which you consider valid evidence. ;)
And PZ Myers is perfectly free to avoid debating someone he considers an apologist for genocide -- he has nothing to gain from the debate, since Craig's tactics are well-described, and have been frequently debunked.
>I notice that having had your last example discredited...
Delete- Oh no, Imnotandei is still trying to play the "you're discredited" card.
Let's see how well that has worked for him:
On August 28, Imnotandrei, claimed my article, 'Why Top Atheist Apologists Avoid Logic Like the Plague" was discredited. When asked to provide at least one actual cogent comment to support his claim, he stated,
"Nompe. Not doing any more for you until you start dealing with the 6 points I made before, Rick."
In complying with his request, I addressed all of Imnotandrei's points and informed him of this on 09/01/12. Imnotandrei again refused to offer any quotes or links to back up his claim, but stated,
"I have backed it up (his supposed refutation) -- that you are unable to go back and read does not make my evidence invalid."
And, to top it off, as a supposed example of atheist logic, Imnotandrei has posted a link to an article where Stephen Law discusses the logic of a Christian argument by William Lane Craig. This is what Imnotandrei considers to be an example of a top atheist apologist "using" logic.
When asked to present his own favorite argument in a simple logical syntax, Stephen Law refused. Simply discussing another person's logical arguments and avoiding the presentation of your own arguments in an organized logical syntax reveals a lack of desire to incorporate logical laws and principles. Imnotandrei has failed to demonstrate that atheist apologists avoid the use of logic, he has only helped to underscore the main logical deduction in the article he claimed was discredited:
P1. The top atheist apologists mainly avoid or misuse logical laws and principles.
P2. Sound logic is required in order to test the truth of ideas.
C. Therefore, top atheist apologists are probably not very interested in the truth of ideas.
After days of squirming and denial, I posted the following logical outline in order to pin him down:
1. Imnotandrei claimed on August 28th that my article had been discredited (past tense).
2. In order to prove my article had been discredited, Imnotandrei must show that a key point or statement had been posted before his claim was made.
3. Imnotandrei has not posted any key point or statement that was made prior to August 28th that could be considered a discrediting comment.
4. Therefore, Imnotandrei's comment on August 28th that my article had been discredited is false.
On September 10, Imnotandrei finally admitted that his slanderous claim was a false one: "If it is so important to you, I'll say it -- on August 28th, it had not been formally discredited."
R:Simply discussing another person's logical arguments and avoiding the presentation of your own arguments in an organized logical syntax reveals a lack of desire to incorporate logical laws and principles.
DeleteLiar, the lack of your beloved syllogism in a discussion does not make criticism of theism illogical. Furthermore, those syllogism can easily be constructed, based on the arguments.
And the reason why Stephen Law and many others ignored you is because you are considered a troll, only interested in pushing propaganda.
Hey, Rick: guess what? People make mistakes.
DeleteYour claiming "He said I was discredited once and was wrong" does not mean that you have not been discredited now.
And, to top it off, as a supposed example of atheist logic, Imnotandrei has posted a link to an article where Stephen Law discusses the logic of a Christian argument by William Lane Craig. This is what Imnotandrei considers to be an example of a top atheist apologist "using" logic.
Since he does so in a precise and logical manner, yes, that's "using" logic. You appear, once again, to be trying to claim that the only way one "uses" logic is to make a premise-premise-conclusion argument.
I have taken apart one of your claimed syllogisms, that supports your Premise #1, elsewhere -- I've now linked to it multiple times.
Since your premise #1 has been discredited, by your own logic, your article has been discredited.
Furthermore, your so-called "logical" claim relies upon arguments that "mainly" or "probably" hold true -- again, demonstrating your lack of rigor in the same pursuit of truth.
R:The word anecdote is more in keeping with the "arguments" put forward by top atheist apologists who avoid logical laws and principles at all costs, such as PZ Myers
ReplyDeleteLiar, as it was shown with the case of Stephen Law
R:As noted, I had offered to send a biscuit to the first person who could find a single logical argument at PZ Myers blog, Pharyngula. No takers.
And that just shows that you are mostly considered as an annoying spamer, who has no interest in the truth of the matter. What you are after is pushing propaganda at any cost, not many people like to engage with troll-like people.
R:Personal testimonies are considered valid evidence even to the extent that they may be used to indict criminals in a court of law and send them to jail
Personal testimonies are considered evidence, but it is also considered extremely weak evidence. Not to mention, we have the testimony of a drug addict here, which is extremely unreliable. You will not have someone found guilty just because of a testimonie without any additional evidence.
R:If PZ Myers' beliefs and arguments had half the credibility that personal testimonies have, he might not be afraid to debate someone such as William Lane Craig.
Craig also does not debate every single person. Does it make him a coward? And we have already spoken about the fact that live debates and debates in general is an extremely weak way of establishing truth. You yourself, Rick, refuse to do live debates.
R:Myers, who believes that morality is based on feelings of empathy, claimed 'moral supremacy' as an excuse for not debating, an illogical assertion for a moral relativist.
Liar. If one goes to the link you provided your slander becomes evident. Let me quote from the link itself:
"1.He hasn’t asked me. I’m a small fish, not even on his radar, so the whole question is pointless.
2.I may be a small fish, but still, a debate with a professional prevaricator and con artist doesn’t look great on my CV — the same point Dawkins has made.
3.Let’s be honest, debating is a skill, Craig is well-practiced in it, and I’m not. Craig would probably ‘win’, and that’s the great lie right there: debate is a terrible way to resolve a truth claim, and a great way to flaunt some rarefied rhetorical talent. He could clobber me six ways from Sunday, and what it would show is that I’m a lousy debater, and he’s good at it; but his fans would all say it’s evidence that he’s right.
4.I much prefer the written argument, because he can’t run away from his own words. One of his skills in the oral debate is the slippery elide; if someone is hammering him on one point, he’ll just skip over it to a new point. I’d rather get his words down in writing, where I can pin him down, stick a knife in the bastard, and twist it for a good long while. Longer and with more detail and rigor than is possible in a verbal tussle.
So sorry, no debate in the offing (and #1 is really the most relevant issue, anyway)."
I figured it out! To Rick, a "top atheist apologist" *is* one who doesn't use logic -- so the moment it was demonstrated that Stephen Law used logical arguments far more rigorous than Rick could manage, he stopped being a "top atheist apologist" -- the same for Daniel Dennett, for example.
Delete>Liar, as it was shown with the case of Stephen Law - and that just shows that you are mostly considered as an annoying spamer, who has no interest in the truth of the matter.
ReplyDelete- OK, so post a quote and link from the supposed valid logical argument that exists at PZ Myers' blog.
Both you and Imnotandrei offer answers likened to the Emperor with no Clothes. Imnotandrei makes slanderous claims that are false and unjustified. He just admitted so. Only after days of denial, Imnotandrei finally admitted this has been the case:
ReplyDelete"If it is so important to you, I'll say it -- on August 28th, it had not been formally discredited."
http://templestream.blogspot.com/2012/09/pastor-teesdale-wins-three-year-battle.html?showComment=1347288260354#c8522167946886754493
You, AnonyRus, call me a liar and you have no example to back up your claim. Show a clear example of a quote and a link where Stephen Law uses a valid logical form and structure in one of his arguments. Show where he at least summarizes his arguments in a logical sequence of premises.
Already done back on the other thread, Rick:
Deletehttp://lawpapers.blogspot.com/2009/06/plantingas-belief-cum-desire-argument.html
Posted first here:
http://templestream.blogspot.com/2012/09/pastor-teesdale-wins-three-year-battle.html?showComment=1347196635653#c6703879728345926064
Hence, Rick, you're a liar. Someone charitable might have been willing to think you'd missed it the first time. But when it's posted again, and you still deny its existence, then either you're willfully ignorant and lying by omission, or deliberately lying.
I was willing to admit an error -- are you, Rick, when you make one, or is preserving your ego and sense of rightness more important than truth?
If anyone didn't notice, Imnotandrei did not even address my point in calling me a liar here.
DeleteThis is what I wrote:
"Show a clear example of a quote and a link where Stephen Law uses a valid logical form and structure in one of his arguments. Show where he at least summarizes his arguments in a logical sequence of premises."
Question: When Stephen Law critiques another philosopher, does that offer "his arguments" in a logical format? No. Does Law's own famous EGC argument offer any sense of cohesive logical syntax or logical consequence? No, it does not. Law actually claims that any "various forms" of his argument that may be found on the Internet and would offer a valid representation of his argument! - As noted at this link:
http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=1645439856635422478#editor/target=post;postID=6387764403501300692
Obviously, the wording and syntax of a logical argument is of immense importance. Hence , Law's low regard for logical principles is well documented. And, the premise of my argument that began the whole "liar" name calling remains true:
"P1. The top atheist apologists mainly avoid or misuse logical laws and principles."
http://templestream.blogspot.com/2012/03/why-top-atheist-apologists-avoid-logic.html
The most prominent atheists do in fact avoid and misuse logical laws and principles as documented in that article and Law does not offer much of a hope at all with regard to changing that perception, rather, he reinforces it.
So, Imnotandrei still has no valid support whatsoever for his noted slander regarding that article. Because such secular detractors continue to repeat false accusations, it seems another article is in order to set the record straight once and for all complete with a full list of referenced comments.
R:OK, so post a quote and link from the supposed valid logical argument that exists at PZ Myers' blog.
ReplyDeleteYou have just changed your claim from "the word anecdote is more in keeping with the "arguments" put forward by top atheist apologists who avoid logical laws and principles at all costs" to PZ Myers does not use valid logical arguments. I do not read PZ s blog and your claim that top-atheists do not use logical principals have already been refuted with Stephen Law. Hence, I see no reason to read pharyngula to prove your incompetence once more.
R:You, AnonyRus, call me a liar and you have no example to back up your claim.
Reading disability at full throttle... Let us recap with your own quote on September 10 at 9:06 AM:
"Myers, who believes that morality is based on feelings of empathy, claimed 'moral supremacy' as an excuse for not debating, an illogical assertion for a moral relativist.
"If William Lane Craig were to offer a debate in a written format, would you accept?" - No. Why? "appalled at his words" (8 November 2011 at 7:19 pm)
http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2011/11/08/why-i-will-not-debate-william-lane-craig/"
Yet, if we follow the link to pharyngula, nowhere does Myers state that he will not debate Craig for moral reasons. Hence, Rick is a liar.
R:Show where he at least summarizes his arguments in a logical sequence of premises
Let us repeat the syllogism for the sake of your reading disability with some adjustements:
1) Most theodicies can be used in exactly the same way to explain an evil god.
2) The explanation of an evil god is invalid
3) If the explanation for an evil god is invalid, the same explanation for a good god should be invalid as well, since it is based on the same principles
4) If the explanation for an omnibenevolent god is invalid, the concept of a Christian god is invalid
There is no such thing as an atheist apologist, and you're being dishonest by claiming otherwise
ReplyDelete