Bob's latest non-arguments
Bob's latest non-arguments
This will be the first of a number of rebuttals I will submit to eviscerate Bob's last and final post.
Analogous: Since I wasn’t invited to participate in the final response to Bob’s 10nth round post, (I sent a pm to Flipper but received no reply), I have decided to deconstruct his pseudo-arguments, (such arguments have been made ad naseum by theists for centuries), on my own and in my own way. I would welcome an opportunity to meet Bob in the ring and take him on head up because I dislike responding to arguments not made directly to me but, in this case, I’ll get over it.
Bob: Welcome to the finale of Battle Royale VII. O Zakath, Zakath, wherefore art thou? We'll see if we can find Zakath somewhere in this post! Meanwhile, let's get to work. Millions of students have been taught variations of seven typical atheist clichés. Zakath obscured some of these hidden within his three rather bizarre arguments for atheism. See if you can spot the ones he used. Boiled down to clear statements exposed to the light of day, each of these popular clichés can be disproved within eight seconds.
Atheist Cliché 1: There is no truth!
Theist Rebuttal: Is that true? [1 second]
Analogous: I’m not at all surprised that Bob has resorted to making false statements (that’s lying), so early in his final argument. Zakath responded to Bob’s question about truth with this:
Zakath: Truth and God
Pastor Enyart had asked whether I believe that truth exists. Over the years my experience with a number of religionists, including the good pastor, is that they have presented me with variety of conflicting assertions all of which they proclaim as being truth. That being the case, I asked him to define what he means by "truth". He responded that "truth is a statement of reality". Given that somewhat tautological definition, I will concede that I believe that truth (as defined here) exists. Experientially, I have found that truth appears frequently in human endeavors as science, engineering, mathematics, and medicine. However, in other areas, including those debated frequently here on TOL like politics and theology, what is "true" seems to get a bit murky.
AnalogousIt is obvious that neither Zak, nor any other atheist, holds a position that “there is no truth”. Bob has erected a straw man by equivocating “truth” about the existence of his god with truth in the general sense. But having resorted to lying should disqualify Bob from this debate. It certainly devaluates what little credibility he might have otherwise salvaged in light of all his other erroneous claims.
Bob: Atheist Cliché 2: There are no absolutes!
Theist Rebuttal: Absolutely? [1 second]
Analogous:Since Bob initially launched this straw man argument in reference to “absolute morals” and ended up with conditional statements, he now thinks his silly question “Absolutely?” somehow magically rescues his woeful arguments, that failed to do so earlier. Bob, when are you going to provide any convincing argumentation for these absolutes? But just to answer your question, no Bob, the statement “there are no absolutes” is not an absolute in itself. It’s just as conditional as all other statements of truth, facts and beliefs. Now if you could prove that your god absolutely exists, that would represent one absolute, otherwise pretending that your question somehow negates the statement is nefarious and disingenuous.
This was Bob’s reply on absolute morality: I’ve noticed something peculiar in the Grandstands. Those who disbelieve in right and wrong jump all over anyone trying to define an absolute wrong while describing a condition in the process. Do you realize that nothing could be conceivably right or wrong in the slightest degree, apart from conditions? I believe they protesteth too much over “conditions,” intending to obfuscate. You criticized my examples of child rape for entertainment and racist murder because they “both appear to be conditional.” What isn’t? There are conditions attending to every event, every good and every crime,
Analogous: Either Bob does not ascribe to the English language or he is redefining the concept of absolute. But this is another typical Christian gimmick. Redefine terms such that they no longer bare any resemblance to common usage and definition. Either “absolute” means what it means or it doesn’t. If Bob must usurp the English language to prove his god exists, by the time he gets around to any actual supporting arguments no one will be able to comprehend them because Bob will have so mangled the language we will have to stop and ask Bob for HIS definition of each term to be sure we’re all using the same nouns, pronouns, verbs and adjectives. I thought Zakath did a fair job of demonstrating Bob’s obfuscation here but I would have toasted Bob on this in every round until he got his act together. You just can’t let these theists get away with anything because it comes back to haunt you.
Bob: Atheist Cliché 3: Only your five senses provide real knowledge!
Theist Rebuttal: Says which of the five? [2 seconds]
Analogous: Bob’s little gimmick here is also typical presuppositionalist BS. The believer operates from an epistemology based on faith, revelation, inspiration, and biblical interpretation. The theist makes the unsupported leap that his god created everything, thus the theist robs from the reality of the atheist’s epistemology to make ALL of his lame arguments. Theists like Bob claim that “apart from God, man can know nothing”. But they haven’t established the existence of this god, so these claims are specious and unsupported. Bob’s real problem, however, is in the fact that I, an atheist, can make the valid claim to know that I exist. I make this claim as an atheist…apart from Bob’s god. Bob has to explain how I can know this without pre-empting my epistemology to do so. The ontology of my claim is entirely supported and easily proven. The ontological verification of Bob’s god is the subject of this debate. Bob continually neglects to support any of his specious arguments from his own epistemology. Bob should be reminded that this is a debate on the existence of his god, not a debate on the validity of Bob’s opinions. In the time it took Bob to cook up this gimmick, I can acquire more knowledge from just one of my senses than Bob can from any and all of his epistemological methods. If Bob could describe some scientific truth about reality derived from his epistemology, that science has not been able to ascertain, and I’m speaking of detailed facts here, not Bob’s say-so, then, and only then, will Bob have earned a right to avail himself of my epistemological methodology in his arguments. Theists like Bob always neglect to mention that there was a time when the extent of Christian expertise, obtained from the bible, was a consensus that the world was flat. It took the courage of men, using their senses, to disprove this erroneous interpretation of detailed biblical knowledge about our reality. So much for the dependability of Bob’s epistemology. It took science to straiten out his mess.
BobAtheist Cliché 4: Great suffering proves that a loving God cannot exist!
Theist Rebuttal: The unstated assumption is false, that suffering can have no value or purpose. [4.5 seconds]
Analogous: Theists like Bob always assume the atheist must intuit any and all conceivable theistic defense mechanisms. This “purpose or value” excuse theists use to apologize for their gods temperament towards humanity is another lame argument that I would like an opportunity to discuss with Bob, one on one. If there is “value” in suffering Bob should explain why man goes to great extent to avoid and treat it as an undesirable phenomenon. If there is a purpose, especially from a loving god’s perspective, Bob should get around to articulating what it is. Bob should begin by apologizing for his loving god’s command to Samuel to have the Hebrews perform genocide after commanding man not to kill. This non-absolute, double standard, act of great human suffering and tragedy was allegedly, (according to the biblical record), ordered out of revenge. Is this Bob’s god’s purpose for suffering? Revelation also declares that all things were created for Bob’s god’s pleasure. Does Bob have an explanation as to how or what manner of god derives pleasure from children being born with Down’s Syndrome?
Bob: Atheist Cliché 5: Atheism is scientific, because science does not allow for a supernatural interpretation of an event!
Theist Rebuttal: Such circular reasoning forces science to assume that which atheists claim it supports. [5 seconds]
Analogous: Does Bob really imagine scientists are forced into such assumptions by atheistic claims? Is Bob so ignorant of science that he actually believes this? What makes this claim so bizarre is that Bob used a scientist’s interpretation of molecular biological data in his seventh round to support his specious claims based on irreducible complexity. Either Bob has a short memory or is grasping at straws…yet again. If the majority of progress made by science has failed to turn up any verifiable, falsifiable evidence of Bob’s god, that is not the atheists fault, or the scientists. It is Bob’s god’s fault pure and simple. Bob needs to get on the horn with him and beg for some credible physical data or detailed explanatory knowledge that can be included in scientific journals for peer review.
Bob: Atheist Cliché 6: Widespread evil proves that a righteous God cannot exist!
Theist Rebuttal: The two unstated assumptions are false: that love can be forced; and that some love is not worth enduring much hate. [6.5 seconds]
Analogous: Bob needs to provide some argumentation to support his equivocation of evil with love. Most of us would love it if evil were actually depleted somewhat, but we’re not naive enough to imagine this will happen without some effort on our part. Bob’s god, if it existed, could easily have made it very difficult for man to perpetrate violence against his fellow man. A powerful being who loves man would have any number of ways of doing this. It could have written the aversion into man’s genetic code. This would have, in no way, violated man’s autonomous will. Violence is not NECESSARY to preserve autonomy EXCEPT in cases where men are able and willing to enslave man via force. A human species with an aversion to violence and coercion, written into its genetic code, would have been wonderful evidence for Bob’s god. Bob must get busy and argue convincingly that “some love” is worth preserving against hate. Would Bob advocate a woman continue to love a husband who abused her for perverted pleasure? Then Bob should justify a god who lifts not a finger to rescue such a woman from circumstances like this, but leaves the rescuing up to man.
Bob: Atheist Cliché 7: If theists claim that the universe could not have always been here, then God couldn’t have always been here either.
Theist Rebuttal: The natural universe is subject to the physical laws, so it would run out of useable energy; a supernatural, spiritual God is not subject to physics. [7.9 seconds]
Analogous: Come on Bob, surely you’ve got more than this? The universe hasn’t been shown to be a closed system Bob, so there’s no evidence to support a claim of running out of usable energy. The 2nd law of thermodynamics only works in a closed system. Adding a god into the mixture violates “the Razor” and fails to justify either the existence of the universe or Bob’s god. Bob is trying to stuff another gap here.
Bob: If your worldview can be dismantled within eight seconds, then get a better one.
Analogous: If you call this dismantling, you’ve got some serious mental deficiencies. Aside from the irrelevancy of the amount of time it takes to present genuine convincing arguments, your stupid little one liners are about as lame and erroneous as they come.
Bob: The atheistic worldview, like the world’s pagan religions, is self-contradictory and undermines morality, reason, and the worth of the human being.
Analogous: Wrong again Bob, atheism has zilch to do with pagan religions like Christianity. Atheism upholds man’s personal responsibility for his behavior, extols the virtues of reason and holds a common inter-subjective value for all of human life. It’s called Humanism. Theism, on the other hand, if it finds a religious justification, (and they abound in the bible), for violence against other humans who disagree with its utterly abysmal moral claims, will gladly incite to riot, witch hunts, genocide, martyrdom, slavery, lying, murder, rape and pillage…as history has attested to, over and over. Bob’s holy book is full of it and much of it has been commanded or approved of by his god. Bob, and his ilk, seem to imagine their god just allows this kind of behavior, but even a precursory glance at his holy babble is sufficient to show that his god has participated in the bloodletting, encouraged it, sanctioned it, and suggested/commanded it. This goes far beyond a mere allowing it to happen for some lame unknown purpose that not even Bob can fathom.
The rest of Bob’s incomprehensible rant against Zakath, from which he tries to drag all atheists into, isn’t worth responding to. I only hope Bob consents to join me in the ring and tries this lame duck warmed over irrationalization he calls an argument for the existence of a god. I won’t be so kind and Bob won’t enjoy it. I will, however, continue to dismantle Bob’s pseudo-arguments as time permits and post them for all to see.
