Dear apologists…

Dear apologists


88 thoughts on “Dear apologists…

  1. What? Using logic to prove the illogical? Diabolic, my friend! Why is it that people who insist on faith continuously try to make their argument from data and logic? Is it merely an instance of “if I can’t convince you that way, how about this way?” Or is it, maybe . . . Satan?!


  2. Any omnipotent omnipresent god that ‘needs’ an apologist is not much of a god, not really. WLC is a fury of facepalm spawning bullshit. He’s no more potent than a bum on speaker’s corner with an extra tuppence who happens to wear a suit and have a degree he can pretend is worth something.

    His debate skills are like that of Muslim apologists – fire as many comments/statements as you can and pretend any rebuttal missed the point. Oh wait, maybe that’s PeW?


    • Rabid apologists like Craig like to believe that by inventing thought exercises which conclude with, “and therefore, god!” is the same thing as presenting hard evidence for their particular god. It’s the equivalent of a child saying, “Santa Claus exists because I say he does!”


    • Dear Mark, please see 300 years of empirical data, experimentation and peer reviewed papers from:


      • Name one study that give evidence that naturalism is true. Give me one solid piece of evidence. Anything. Since you believe there is evidence in all those different fields, surely you should be able to give me just one example of a piece of empirical data that shows the veracity of naturalism.


      • I don’t see how e=mc2 translate to “All that exists in this universe is combinations of matter and energy with no possibility of anything existing beyond.” I don’t see how it’s relevant to any other definition of naturalism I’ve been able to find. Perhaps I’m too dumb to make the connection. Please, walk me through it.


      • Then help me understand please. I’m starting to lose patience. You claim that your belief in naturalism is demonstrable. So demonstrate it! If you can’t, then admit it! Just insulting me makes it appear that your arguments don’t actually have substance.


  3. I said “perhaps” I’m too dumb. Let’s find out. Explain it to me and we’ll find out. I don’t really believe you will though: if past experience is any indication you’ll just insult me without actually making a cogent argument.


    • Harden up, Princess…. They were your words, not mine.

      Now, I believe you’re fishing for a Unified Theory of Everything, of which there currently isn’t one, and won’t be one until physicists work out quantum gravity. Until that point, which is fast approaching, we have the laws of the universe: small and large parcels of reliable and testable theorems, like gravity, the conservation of energy and thermodynamics. I’m no physicists but I’m sure I can demonstrate it for you by boiling water…. Heads-up, at normal atmospheric pressure it happens at 100 degrees EVERY TIME! Amazing, huh?


      • Come on, John, you can’t prove a negative. Anyone can always insist that there might be something “supernatural.” The more pertinent question is how can they distinnguish their god from a highly advanced alien. They can’t and neither can we prove that something outside of nature cannot exist using the laws of nature. The guy has a hook, but there is no bait on it.


      • That was the point of my comment. It is a fool’s errand as the question cannot be answered. It is like one of those “if God is all powerful can he make a rock he cannot lift” questions. Somebody ill inclined to accept the last 400 years of scientific evidence that has disproved tons of religious nonsense (and none has gone vice-versa) then no amount of argumentation will.

        What does the Bible have to say about how things work? Almost nothing. Very little biology, very little chemistry, some politics, a little engineering, almost no cooking (no recipes!), etc. So, science doesn’t contradict the Bible so much as the Bible just doesn’t say anything.

        I suggest that Bible thumpers live by the book and don’t accept anything not explicitly vouchsafed by scripture. That way we don’t have to listen to their drivel (no phones, no computers, etc.).


      • Hey cool! Water boils at a uniform temperature! That’s great! But it has absolutely nothing to do with whether naturalism is true or not. It would be like me saying “God exists because the melting point of lead is constant!” Come on, give me an actual piece of evidence that shows naturalism is true.


  4. I was reminded by the good Mark of something I read some years ago during the Soviet era, to the effect that an American was being shown through the Soviet Museum of Great People:
    Wherein the guide showed him the bust of a bewhiskered bloke and said: “This is Ivan Knockabolokov, our second greatest inventor—he invented the pneumatic tyre, the telephone, penicillin, the atomic bomb, the submarine, the typewriter, canned fish, hamburgers, the suspension bridge …”
    “Oh,” said the American, trying to head it off at the pass, “and who was your greatest inventor?”
    At which the guide beamed and pointed to a modest bust of a bespectacled woman— “and here we have Ivanna Noratitzov, our very greatest ever inventor!”
    “And what did she invent?”
    “She invented Ivan Knockabolokov~!”


Leave a Reply

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

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

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ 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 )


Connecting to %s