RE: “Why don’t YOU give me the burden of proof?!”

Okay someone PMed me urgently requesting that I reply to this blog with the above title.  I wasn’t going to, I figured I’d just comment.  Then I saw that people were actually agreeing with this tired tripe in the comment section, and well we can’t have that now can we? : )

So yeah, I will give an in-line response.

Also note the blog title, which is hilariously, ironically retarded as that is just what the skeptic is doing.

The blog:

It’s funny…

Well… lemme say that I recently saw a comic strip/illustration of a logical reasoning VS a religious reasoning in which 2 stick figures “face-off”… the first pair that illustrated logical reasoning is Stick figure guy #1 says something about a baseball… Stick figure #2 asks for the proof… Stick figure #1 reveals the baseball as the proof…
Then the comic goes off and holds the same stick figure scenario pertaining to religious reasoning… but the last line is Stick Figure #1 exclaiming the notion, “YOU CAN’T PROVE I DON’T HAVE ONE!” making him look irrational and overbearing… and then stick figure #2 making a calm yet snarky remark… thereby from my best assumption making the Stick Figure #2 be the allegory to atheist while stick figure #1 the… irrational religious folk

First of all, this is the picture in question which zerowing posted and then I posted as well because it’s a classic lil’ funny picture:

Second of all, the blog author I am responding to went on to do exactly what the religious person in the picture did, only he bashed science some first.

The problem is first off… the response isn’t at all unreasonable… when asked for proof verifying the existence of God… the one asking for proof can’t at all prove that there isn’t…

You can’t disprove unicorns, fairies, dragons, zeus or the abominable snowman.  It is impossible to universally prove that anything does not exist.  That fact does not make it reasonable to believe anything you like.

conversely the Christian supposing God’s existence can prove through proper thought and reasoning…

The author then doesn’t offer proof of any kind and just attacks science as inadequate at proving things.

The question though is… how do you want to the proof?

Because for many… well, many an atheist… they want scientific evidence for God’s visible existence…

No, logical evidence would do just fine, but nice straw man anyway.

Dr. William Lane Craig asserts that there are 5 major problems with using science as a means of gaining evidence… by that he means there are things with which science CANNOT prove scientifically… here are the 5 he states:
1.  Logical/mathematical truths… science presupposes logic and math so to try to prove them by science would be arguing in a circle”

The statement “science ‘presupposes’ logic and math” is not a coherent sentence.  Philosophers invented logic and scientists invented math.  Both are credible because both can be tested.  You can test a mathematical proof for accuracy and you can disprove a logical argument by showing a disconnect between the premises and conclusions or by showing one or more premise to be false or showing that the argument excludes other possibilities etc.

“2.  Metaphysical truths… there are other minds or the external world is real or the past was not created 5 minutes ago w/ an appearance of age…”

Which you also have to assume to believe anything you believe, hypocrite.

“3.  Ethical beliefs… science can’t prove whether the Nazi scientists did anything evil vs western democratic scientists”

That is in the realm of philosophy, science is a methodology for testing physical explanations.  You might as well criticize botany as being useless because it can’t explain insect behavior or say that the inability to explain quantum mechanics is a shortcoming of poetry.

Different areas of study that deal with different things, different ways.  And also a complete dodge since you can’t use moral philosophy OR science to prove there is a god so this is just irrelevant science-bashing.

“4.  Aesthetic judgments… statements of beauty like the good cannot be proven scientifically…”

Wait, so 4 and 5 refer to science not being able to deal with abstract things that only exist in our minds.  If you want to argue that science can’t disprove god because god is a concept and not a physical reality then hey, we’re on the same page.

and finally…

5.  Science itself… science can’t be justified by the Scientific Method… science is permeated with unprovable assumptions… ie: Special theory of Relativity… we can’t PROVE the speed of light to be the determined number it is… it is just assumed in order to uphold w/ the theory…

Um, relativity isn’t an assumption, it’s a model that explains things like gravity better than any previous model and can be experimentally tested.  And we can measure the speed of light extremely accurately, which is why we know it’s 299,792,458 meters per second.  That number wasn’t pulled out of a hat you lunatic.

So the question is… really back into full circle…

You want proof that there IS a God… PROVE to me that there IS NO GOD…

And the author says exactly what the religious person in the cartoon said, and even yelled it in capital letters!

Too perfect!

Atheists want prove that there IS a God… which I would go on and say how do you want the proof????

That is the prime question… how do you want it served to you?

Any form, hell I don’t even want proof, I’ll settle for any evidence whatsoever.  Logical, scientific or otherwise.  But not this weak-ass “science is lame so Yahweh specifically must be real” stuff.  That is a neurotic reaction, not a logical argument.  It’s on par with “I know you are but what am I”.

Scientifically?  Well… I can’t because God’s existence is neither observable, measurable, or repeatable much in the same way George Washington’s presidency is neither observable, measurable, or repeatable… which is what the Scientific Method dictates we are to do in order to prove what we are trying to scientifically prove…

Whoa, whoa, wait a minute.  So you’re saying we have god’s signature on documents, thousands of firsthand accounts of his life, paintings of him that he posed for and his fucking body in a box?  If you can tell me that then you can compare the two.  But no, that george washington was a president of the US is not an article of faith.  Faith is by definition a belief held without evidence.  George washington “believers” are not a religion.

“But you didn’t win there my dear atheist friend… don’t rest your laurels upon science because there are many things with which science CANNOT prove as Dr. Craig pointed out… and those are just of the flaws of science…”

That’s like proving you didn’t murder your wife by saying “well that guy raped his KIDS!  I mean KIDS!  That guy sucks way worse than you’re accusing me of sucking!   …therefore I do not suck.”  You cannot prove your position by attacking something else.

And do not pretend to have evidence and then refuse to provide it at the same time unless you want to look like a fool.

“so what now????  Because we clearly can’t rely on science to prove or disprove God…”

In the words of I’m sure some great philosopher, put up or shut up.  You can believe whatever you like, but don’t be obnoxious and dictate what I  should believe unless you have more to back it up than not liking science.


About agnophilo

This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged . Bookmark the permalink.

27 Responses to RE: “Why don’t YOU give me the burden of proof?!”

  1. How it always goes. The religious are not bound by reason and thus they exploit this to their advantage.

  2. agnophilo says:

    @tendollar4ways – Yup.  As I said in a PM to someone recently, you can’t argue with “just because” which is what every faith argument boils down to.

  3. kirbym says:

    I just thought I’d point out that Scientists didn’t fucking Invent Math.Esoteric Religious Mystics, formulated Math, Physics, Chemistry, ectera.Gnostics such as Newton, Leibnez, Dee, Bacon and others Created calculas Alchemists, Astrologers and Catholic Monks pretty much Preserved All Formula and Knowledge through the Dark Ages after the fall of Rome.So lets be fair.Science is the Child of Religion.The Two Are so Compatible that it’s funny. Religion is after allThe Father of Reason. Which is also probably another Reason why 90% of Brilliant Scientists areReligious, most even giving Created to Gnosis (The Holy Ghost) or GodFor having giving them the Revelation or Spark of Insight to their Break throughs.And as Science Lumbers increasingly into Metaphysical matters you’ll findScience slowly reforming back into the fold of Esoteric Religion over the next few Centuries.The oddly Passionate Atheism of the last Century was merely a Convenient PoliticalTool, after it’s served it’s purpose,  it will be wiped away like an ugly Stain.And Although I will Accept the troubles with Dogma that is not a Foible of Religion,But Politics. Religion is Merely the Original Pursuit for Answers.  For Reason.And While it’s intermarriage with Politics has left an Ugly stain, it is nothingCompared to the Horrors spawned of Atheism merged with Politics.

  4. bosefius says:

    I started to read his blog entry, realized he was an douche filled with crazy cheese. Saying that George Washington is unprovable, thus the same as God? Wow.Dr. Craig sounds like a lunatic btw.Speaking of crazy cheese, look above ^

  5. Dargon says:

    I love how he went and illustrated the comic he cited perfectly. I suppose it just shows how the religious and the non-religious just don;t think the same. 

  6. agnophilo says:

    @kirbym – Most scientists are theists in most countries only because most people are theists.  And of the “most brilliant” scientists, almost none believe in a personal god. Check out the religious un-belief statistics in the national academy of scientists and royal society, it’s close to 100%  Moreover claiming that science came from religion because many scientists were religious is like claiming religion came from white people because many scientists are white.  Whiteness doesn’t actually have jack shit to do with the scientific method.  And nor does faith.  “Science” is a methodology for testing naturalistic explanations for phenomenon, it is not informed by supernaturalism.Also the notion that atheism is just a political ploy for the sake of convenience is asinine when you say it to someone in the united states, a country that gets more secular by the day and in which not being christian is a political liability which makes one un-electable.@bosefius – Yeah, I was gonna tell you about the crazy cheese above your comment : )

  7. Justin_DeBin says:

    Obfuscat the argumehnt all you want, but if you want me to believe there is no god (gods) then you must prove it to me. If Joseph Parsons wants me to believe that his god exists then he must prove it to me. That simple!

  8. Justin_DeBin says:

    @bosefius – I don’t believe in George Washington. He was a figment of Mr Wiles imagination. So there!

  9. @agnophilo – I have mentioned it before……it is like playing a basketball game against these people where we play by the rules…they pick up the ball and run with it, tackle you when you have the ball, score 0 baskets to your 30 and then they delcare themselves the victor. Frustrating as hell cuz they still want to call it basketball when it is anything but.

  10. agnophilo says:

    @Justin_DeBin – Who is joseph parsons?  And I can’t prove that unicorns and dragons don’t exist.  So do you believe they do?@tendollar4ways – I’ve used that exact metaphor to describe it, lol.  Yeah, pain in the ass.  And just as obnoxious too.

  11. Justin_DeBin says:

    Regular commenter on my site.FAIL! I’m not the happy moron trying to make a case that they do. Try again?

  12. agnophilo says:

    @Justin_DeBin – And I’m not making the case that they don’t.  Only that there’s no reason to suppose they do.  Like dragons and unicorns, which you didn’t get back to me about.

  13. Justin_DeBin says:

    @agnophilo – Where you fail is in that there is no reason to suppose they don’t either. It’s simple logic, you know!

  14. agnophilo says:

    @Justin_DeBin – So again answer my simple question, do you believe in dragons or unicorns?

  15. Justin_DeBin says:

    I niether believe nor disbelieve. I know that’s a hard concept for fanatics and fundies to understand, but it is possible.

  16. @Justin_DeBin – @agnophilo – It appears JDB here is Fundy Buddhist it seems.

  17. agnophilo says:

    @Justin_DeBin – I wouldn’t mind you being agnostic if you weren’t such a dick about it.@tendollar4ways – He’s buddhist?

  18. friggin driod….doubt he prays to buddha or is trying to reach nirvanabut he thinks without thinking..he is too school for school…..but at least he aint a fundy…..which makes him a fundy. he is a pussy who would rather laugh than actually talk about shit seriously. and laugh i mean he laughs thinking he is better than everyone else…but he is mearly like everyone else.

  19. agnophilo says:

    @tendollar4ways – Well buddhists don’t pray to buddha, but yeah.

  20. Justin_DeBin says:

    @agnophilo – Troll dude! I’m a troll! There is a difference!@tendollar4ways – So says the god of logic Tendollar4ways. May Tendollar4ways be with you.Crowd~ And also with you.

  21. @agnophilo – My co-worker prays to Buddha. Her Buddhism is much closer to the Abrahamic trio than what I have studied about Buddhistic Philosophy. She isn’t the first Buddhist I have met who opperates the same way. Personally I like Buddhism and the philo….several of the Buddhists I have met make me scratch my head with what they do.

  22. agnophilo says:

    @tendollar4ways – Your co-worker is retarded.  Buddha is a concept, not a being.  It means enlightened one.  Siddhartha Gautama, the founder of buddhism who was just a dude, is called the/a buddha because he was believed to be enlightened.The buddha statue is symbolic of enlightenment/peace/happiness, not an idol to be worshipped.Seriously, wtf are some people smoking.

  23. @agnophilo – I am well aware of the philo. Buddhism has jumped the shark like ALL other organised religions. It is always about the benjamines.  They search out the reincarnated Buddha (what a crock of BS) and train him from childhood to be their leader or whatever??

  24. agnophilo says:

    @tendollar4ways – Yeah that is a crock.  I like the philosophy of buddhism, the religion is just as full of shit as any other religion.

  25. @agnophilo – Funny, parents get away with “because I said so” [or some variation] arguement all the time.

  26. agnophilo says:

    @Haruka_Amimu_Shi – And then their kids turn around and say “because my mom/dad said so”.  Like religious people do with god.

Speak yer mind.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s