"A cruel debate opponent" "Pagan blasphemer" "Reverse-iconoclast" "don't get pissed at him b/c he pwn yalls whiney asses"
My Photo
Location: Indiana, United States

Miscellaneous meanderings and philosophical ramblings. The title from a spiral notebook I used to jot down my thoughts on religion and other matters some years ago. I like to write, think and express my views on various issues. Robust discussion is welcome.

Chris of Rights and Charles Martin <-- Lists of debunked Sarah Palin rumors

"Lan astaslem."
I will not submit. I will not surrender.
Choose your language: Francais/French Deutsch/German Italiano/Italian Portugues/Portuguese Espanol/Spanish 日本語/Japanese 한국어/Korean 中文(简体)/Chinese Simplified

Tuesday, February 13, 2007

And I thought the teeny boppers were stupid

At least they have an excuse, being that they're young. Perhaps they'll eventually study a few things rather than continue to uncritically accept what they threw around in their little youtube video that I addressed in a previous post. However, there are others, smug in their rejection of God or any thing supernatural, who unless they're simply an uneducated toddler, have no excuse while being unable to see the absolute foolishness of what they say.

I've had a bit of dialogue of late with several (ir)rationals groupies here on my blog. Considering my experience with this type before, I don't normally rush to provide extensive answers. Those who proudly strut in their extreme skepticism, while applying it inconsistently are clearly not interested in reasoned discussion. There's really not much else to think of someone who says there's no evidence whatsoever for the Christian faith or even for the supernatural.

If you want to start from the beginning, the post that started all of this and the various exchanges that followed:

Rational Response Squad...
Dialogue with RRS groupies - round 1
Dialogue with RRS groupies - round 2
(ir)Rational Responders - dialogue with groupie 2 cont.

Little Pirate's rather pathetic reply to that last post:

Obviously, you're unable to assimilate an atheists stimulating concepts into your blighted and retarded world-view. I don't know what your problem is, but I'll bet it's hard to pronounce.

Have fun with your overpopulated, banner-laden, 1995'esque blog

Atheists for Jesus!

and my reply:

Little Pirate,

Thanks for proving the waste of time that it is to offer substantive data and arguments to a head up their ass skeptic.


Little Pirate has since replied again, though in more wordy fashion, however, it will soon be clear that the increased volume of text does nothing to rise above the previous shallow and uninformed replies that this particular groupie is so capable of.

Little Pirate: bold font

My replies interspersed throughout: italic font


Big Mark,

Just remember you're the one who set the tone for the commentary on this blog with your original post...I'm just following your lead.

How cute, now you're saying "you did it first!" Actually, what I did in my first post was note what I saw as flaws in a news report concerning the (ir)rationals and then stated that I didn't care to rush into taking the time to present things to hardcore skeptics as you and others immediately demonstrated being. You've only proceeded to confirm my original perception and this reply does nothing to reverse that. For your little, "just following your lead" to really work, you would have to actually have offered substance that I just dismissed out of hand. That's not what happened, as I replied to your little article from John Loftus with explanations and sources as to why he was wrong on so many issues. I notice you have yet to bother replying to any of the points raised, even in your second reply to that post.

Either way, the fact is that you have yet to defend your religious beliefs on a rational basis - even when I asked you a simple question.

You either have a problem with reading comprehension or didn't bother to actually read the post that you have now replied to - twice.

It's easy to say hey, look at the Bible, the evidence is obvious (to which you did).

Actually, I did not. While my answers were brief, I offered more explanation than - because the Bible says.

But if you seriously look at the "evidence" for believing in a supreme being, the evidence is not really evidence at all - it's just a bunch of weak arguments rolled up in a variety of talking points.

Wow, such a detailed refutation of all the various arguments for the supernatural. <-- sarcasm, as I'm sure it went over your head.

Evidence against believing in a supreme being is so much more substantial, verifiable, reproduceable and gratifying, and it is mounting every day.

And again, since you obviously didn't read my previous post, go read what Paul Davies has written or take the time to look up Antony Flew. The situation is certainly not as you portray it, unless you think Christianity is only young earth creationism and hyper literal understandings of the Biblical text. If that's your entire understanding of the faith, then you only demonstrate your ignorance, let alone, your apparent claim of a negative being proved.

If your religious beliefs comfort you, or you genuinely believe in them, that's your prerogative - but neither of those things give credence to your supernatural beliefs being true. Not a single one.

It's not like I argued for feelings or sincerity as evidence. Do you ever pay attention?

I choose a natural world-view because it makes more sense, and there is evidence to support it.

Except the Johny Loftus article you presented as sooo rational, was filled with ignorance and poorly supported conclusions. Also, while there is evidence that life adapts, that is quite different from ultimate origins, as well as, the problem of a completely natural world-view explaining how rationality can be valid if everything is merely the result of non-rational motions of atomic particles.

In the 30+ years I was a follower of the Christian faith, I never once was provided evidence to support what I was suppose to believe. I just had to believe because "it was the truth" - that's how I was raised.

That only shows you were a stupid Christian surrounded by too many using the "blind faith" crutch that I care little for. Hardly surprising since you're also a stupid atheist.

But I've broken free from the mindtrap that is religion - and it's a great thing. If verifiable evidence turns up to support to existence of a supernatural being, I'm willing to consider the possibility of the existence of a god/gods. Until then, that blighted world-view doesn't interest me.

*yawn* Keep strutting oh peacocky one. You've only shown that you haven't bothered to look into the information I've already presented or even deal with the points I've raised. You haven't really broken away from any mindtrap when you maintained your condition of being willfully uninformed, regardless of your change in world view.

"It is far better to grasp the universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring."
- Carl Sagan

I see no reason to disagree with Sagan on that. I have reason to draw different conclusions regarding the universe as it really is though.


Concluding comments:

For someone who is observant enough to comment on the style of my blog, it's rather telling that they miss seeing that I have an Apologetics Department/Category in the left sidebar and a search feature in the right, as well as also in the blogger bar at the top. I also have several links to apologetics resources in my left sidebar. Talk about selective vision, with not a single point in my previous post actually being addressed and the various means to seek out further information, also completely ignored.

Such a determined effort to not even reply to brief explanations and points raised or seek further information is not the sign of one who is actually open to evidence as this (ir)rationals groupie claimed to be. As to formerly being a Christian, big whoop, clearly not a very informed one, to say the least, and very determined to maintain that condition of being uninformed.

Those so proud of their apostasy sadly confirm scripture.

Heb 6:4 For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost,
Heb 6:5 And have tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the world to come,
Heb 6:6 If they shall fall away, to renew them again unto repentance; seeing they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put him to an open shame.

Hopefully, it isn't too late for those bragging about their turning from the faith. But though that may unfortunately be the case, we can still learn from this. We apparently have an example of what relying on the crutch of "blind faith" can lead to. We not only perform a disservice to ourselves when we do so, but we only help undermine others in the faith and bear some responsibility for those who turn away, thinking there is no evidence whatsoever. However, that they choose to remain so uninformed, when the situation is easily resolved, means they still bear final responsibility regarding their condition. While it's more difficult, to study and provide good answers, it is encouraged in scripture and it will bring great rewards.

2Ti 2:15 Study to show thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.


Filed under: Religion -- Christianity -- Apologetics

Trackposted to: Outside the Beltway, Random Dreamer, Perri Nelson's Website, Is It Just Me?, The Random Yak, Big Dog's Weblog, Adam's Blog, basil's blog, DragonLady's World, Common Folk Using Common Sense, The Bullwinkle Blog, The Amboy Times, Conservative Cat, Conservative Thoughts, Pursuing Holiness, Wake Up America, Rightlinx, Faultline USA, third world county, stikNstein... has no mercy, Blue Star Chronicles, Pirate's Cove, Planck's Constant, Dumb Ox Daily News, High Desert Wanderer, and Right Voices, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Trackback URI                             Submit this post on! width=                     View blog reactions
<< Home

Click for Latest Posts

Creative Commons License

As defined and limited by the license, any use of work from this blog, must be attributed to Mark K. Sprengel and include a link back to this blog.

Get updates by e-mail:

Delivered by FeedBurner

Widgetize! Subscribe Social Bookmark Blogs that link here
My Technorati profile

Also, follow me on Twitter

Search this blog:

powered by Aditya

Recent Comments: