Tuesday, March 22, 2011

More Irrational, Illogical Bunkum!

It now is getting somewhat tiresome and irritating to have to rebut yet again, the irresponsible dreck and nonsense of one clueless, lame Florida "pastor". What it will take to finally get logical arguments to sink into his dense cranium I've no idea. But possibly at least one hundred sessions of electro-convulsive therapy (combined with large lithium doses) to soften up those hardened neurons.

He writes in a recent blog, continuing to spread his ignorance:

"If an atheist says he (or she) lacks / withholds belief in God, yet actively seeks to undermine theistic proofs and promote atheistic principles, then we must conclude that his actions are consistent with his beliefs; namely, that he actively believes God does not exist. "

NOT SO! One can withhold belief in the CLAIM for any deity (which is what the atheist is actually doing!) and still seek to undermine the ILLOGIC and FALSE ARGUMENTS that attempt to support it! Thus, there are NO "theistic proofs" at all, only what the theists THINK are proofs. It is the legitimate job (some would say duty) of the rationalist to skewer pseudo-proofs in the interest of intellectual honesty, wherever he sees them. Especially as he'd do the exact same for any other specious claims, including Orgone energy, ghosts, elves or fairies. Why should an alleged "god proof" be any different? It isn't!

The theists then haven't proven their case at all, nor even given necessary and sufficient conditions for the existence of their entity, far less proven any existence! But none of these means or implies that the atheist "actively believes God doesn't exist" any more than skewering claims for 3" high fairies shows he actively believes fairies don't exist. He is merely withholding investment in the claim for any such existence until such time the claimant(s) can produce evidence for it. Ditto with the god claim! The error made by theists is in the presumption of existence without have actually rigorously rendered a proof. This is analogous to committing the logical fallacy of "Affirming the Consequent", or implicitly stating or assuming that which they have yet to prove. Merely saying or writing there is proof is not proof: one must actually do the work, cross all the t's and dot all the i's, show every step.

As for "promoting atheistic principles" there are no such things! There ARE materialist-physicalist principles which underscore all of natural science, and these the atheist is duty bound to uphold in the face of unproven supernaturalist bunkum and hokum. As a former science lecturer/educator who still volunteers his time and experience on the All Expert forums for Astronomy and Astrophysics, it would be seriously remiss of me as well as incompetent, not to defend naturalist principles underlying our scientific discoveries, including for the Big Bang, cosmic expansion, dark energy and dark matter, as well as the probabilistic basis of quantum mechanics.

He goes on, dense as before:

" Furthermore, if the atheist is actively promoting the non-existence of God yet says he lacks / withholds belief in God, then his words and actions are inconsistent. "

Again, NOT at all! One cannot promote the non-existence of that which has not been shown to even remotely exist in the first place and for which not even the most basic necessary and sufficient conditions have been provided! This is bollocks and bullshit. The atheist then, is merely acting the part of the citizen in the mythical kingdom who pointed out that "the Emperor has no clothes". The theists' claim for a God to exist, similarly, has NO ontological or empirical ballast or support!

It is ludicrous for this fruitcake fundie to claim otherwise, when he can't even answer basic theodicy questions to defend his claimed deity! It merely shows him to be the blustering demagogue he routinely displays.

More babble:

"Atheists who say they lack / withhold belief in God, or disbelieve in God yet actively attack theistic proofs and seek to promote atheism, are acting according to their beliefs, not their non-beliefs or their "lack of belief." "

Again, irrational codswallop! The theist has NOT proven his claim or even provided basic n-s conditions for it, so the atheist as rank and file skeptic is as justified in attacking its false premises and assumptions as he would be any other specious claim. There is no special dispensation awarded to a "divine" claim, which also falls under the extraordinary claim category and as we know, extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence. This manner of evidence, or in fact ANY evidence, has not yet been provided!

Therefore, it is the atheists' clear duty to remind people of that and expose the innumerable defects and deficiencies in theists' logic and reason that abound. Again, this doesn't change the context: we are still withholding acceptance in the CLAIM made by the theist, like I would for a claim made by a neighbor that insists he has aliens in his attic but won't provide the evidence for it. Our aggressive defense of reason, and in demanding the stringent and rigorous exercise of it from theists, does not dilute or remove our own withholding acceptance from the claims made. Contrary to the extremist fundie's spin, there is no inconsistency at all. The defense of reason in argumentation is FULLY compatible with the withholding of acceptance in an extraordinary claim which has only fulfilled itself by default presumption, not actual, palpable evidence or logic.

And lastly:

"It is more consistent to say that the atheist who supports and promotes the idea that there is no God, but attacks theistic evidences, must believe there is no God. Otherwise, he is behaving without a reason, which is not logical."

Again, not SO! It is the atheist's duty to vigorously "attack" "theistic evidences" if these are specious and don't pass any smell tests. (Including pointing out the theists' consistent failure to give necessary and sufficient conditions for his god to exist). It is not the atheist's job after all to disprove the positive claim but the theist's to defend and support it. He is the one who would had to reality via his supernatural domain, hence HE must be the one to fully provide the evidence for it, starting with the n-s conditions!

The atheist, furthermore, does not "support and promote the idea that there is no God" but rather exposes for all to see the inadequacy of the ARGUMENTS that claim there is proof for a deity, when there is in fact nothing. Nada. Once more this twit twists things to suit his false portrayal of what atheism means.

As for "behaving without a reason", hardly! The atheist is only too well aware of the incursions of extreme Christian fundamentalism, as he is of the inroads made by Islamic fundamentalism. Both are intolerant and toxic memes which ultimately aim to impose theocracies on captive populations. The atheist then, contrary to this turkey, understands that if he doesn't inveigh against the fundies' false godism now, as when they use it to curtail abortion services (from Planned Parenthood) or kill abortion doctors, then he may not get any chances later. In which case, his own wife, nieces or other relatives may fall victim to their insanity by being deprived of services when they need them.

Of course, hard headed zealots like this guy will never ever grasp that, why should they when it cuts down their vested interest in promoting idiotic, unconvincing BS?

No comments: