You are hereBlogs / defaithed's blog / Recycling an excellent anti-atheist argument
Recycling an excellent anti-atheist argument
Someone named Vox Day has graced the world with such an awesome putdown of the recent atheist books that I just had to leave a comment on the blog post in question. I'll repeat it here for your amusement:
Original post:
Indeed, the very idea that one’s personal opinion has anything to do with the existence or non-existence of God is fundamentally irrational. Whether one contemplates the existence of God, Swaziland or string theory, the truth is ultimately whatever it actually happens to be, our current perceptions and ideas notwithstanding. I can’t prove to you that God exists. I can’t even prove to you that I exist. And if God elects to manifest and show Himself to you in all His radiant glory today, you won’t be able to prove to me or anyone else that He did that tomorrow. But if one cannot reasonably reach a rational conclusion on the God hypothesis one way or the other, one can certainly put specific arguments based on foundations of purported facts to the test. If religious faith causes war, how many wars in the last 5,000 years of recorded human history were caused by religious faith? If religion divides humanity into warring groups, what is the ratio of religious divisions to groups capable of engaging in conflict? If morality evolves, at what speed does it evolve and what is the mechanism by which it does so? If the probability of God’s existence is very, very small, precisely how small is it and what are the factors by which that probability is calculated?
The comment I left:
Excellent refutation of atheists. In fact, I'm going to put your exact words to use fighting another ridiculous "secular religion": a-Leprechaunism. Like this:
"Indeed, the very idea that one’s personal opinion has anything to do with the existence or non-existence of Leprechauns is fundamentally irrational. Whether one contemplates the existence of Leprechauns, Swaziland or string theory, the truth is ultimately whatever it actually happens to be, our current perceptions and ideas notwithstanding. I can’t prove to you that Leprechauns exist. I can’t even prove to you that I exist. And if a Leprechaun elects to manifest and show itself to you in all its radiant begorrah today, you won’t be able to prove to me or anyone else that it did that tomorrow. But if one cannot reasonably reach a rational conclusion on the Leprechaun hypothesis one way or the other, one can certainly put specific arguments based on foundations of purported facts to the test... If the probability of Leprechauns' existence is very, very small, precisely how small is it and what are the factors by which that probability is calculated?"
There! That'll put those faeists in their place!
Kindness compels me to offer a piece of friendly advice to the religious crowd. It's this: Any time you can take your pro-God argument and replace every instance of "God" with "Leprechauns", and nothing really changes, it's time to go back to the drawing board for a new argument. Trust me, that advice is for your own good.
"But if one cannot reasonably reach a rational conclusion on the God -hypothesis- one way or the other, one can certainly put specific arguments based on foundations of purported facts to the test."
Hypothesis:
noun, plural -ses 1. a proposition, or set of propositions, set forth as an explanation for the occurrence of some specified group of phenomena, either asserted merely as a provisional conjecture to guide investigation (working hypothesis) or accepted as highly probable in the light of established facts.
lets do another quote from the defenition of a working hypothesis:
"or accepted as highly probable in the light of established facts. "
Where are established facts in the bible?
Established facts in the Bible? Got me. Well, there certainly are references to real-world cities and rivers and kings and what not, as believers are fond of pointing out... but, we have to reply to them, so? That's exactly what we'd expect of a book written by real-world people. How does mention of a real city by its contemporary writers make a separate talking-snake fable a historical event?
That's a question for the Bible believers – who will neglect to ponder how mention of historical people and places in countless other religions' texts prove the "truth" of those texts!
Good stuff that bares endless repetition until it's impossible for someone to public make an argument failing the Leprechaun test without being laughed off the internet.
Other failing arguments:
Pascals' wager: However small the chances of the existence of an all powerful being that will give infinite punishment for [not believing in leprechauns] the optimal course is to believe in them just in case.
Ontological argument: You can conceive of the most perfect [Leprechaun] that could exist...
I think the Leprechaun Test is especially harsh on any arguments full of meaningless gobbledegook (like the one I quoted); it shows just how empty the claims are. But you got me thinking: In the interest of a real debate (to the extent that one can be had), what would be an example of a pro-God argument that won't let us doubters replace "God" with "Leprechaun" (or "Odin" or "Vishnu" or whatever)? I can't think of one. If I could, I'd happily suggest that believers stick to that argument; if nothing else, it'd lift the debate a wee bit out of its usual silliness.
Hee hee, I love it! The Leprechaun Test!
Sad thing is, I know some people who would read that and go "Exactly! Leprechauns exist!"
Argh.
I don't have one specific debate in mind, but here's how it seems some debates – whether on the Internets or just by the water cooler – actually do run. See if you don't agree:
Rationalist: What's the evidence for this God of yours?
Creationist: Evidence is not the criteria for everything. Some things are beyond what you call "evidence". There are other ways in which we know God. (Carry on about faith / revelation / "personal relationship" / etc.)
R: But that rationale just as easily supports belief in Leprechauns as it does belief in God.
C: No, belief in God is entirely more reasonable. There's evidence for the existence of God.
R: Evidence? But you just said...
C: So, why do you hate Christmas music and stained glass?
... and on it goes. (A fictional debate, but a very real depiction of what I call the "cricket on a hotplate" method of irrationalist debate: keep hopping from one position to another as soon as things get hot.)
In fact, your praise belongs to Vox Day, who was participating in a feature called "The Big Idea," in which authors explain a big idea in their work. I myself am deeply agnostic.
My deepest apologies, sir! I know I looked a couple times at the page to find the author of the text in question, and clearly flubbed the answer completely. I didn't recognoze "Vox Day" as an author name at all.
I've fixed the attribution in the post, and thank you for the quick and courteous correction. I will increase or decrease my coffee consumption as required to get unaddled.
Post new comment